• And009@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 hours ago

    That’s not how we should see it. Digital artists spend a lot of time creating and trying different things. On the other hand we have people with different conditions who have ideas without the skills yo execute anything.

    This allows everyone to do more and quicker, increasing the earning potential. AI is useful as long as it levels out the playing field. It’s the malicious use we need to moderate and like drugs, thats a slippery slope.

    • Pandemanium@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      When I am amazed by a piece of art, it’s because a person was able to conceive of a scene and then use techniques they’ve learned to bring that scene from their mind into reality. I think, “Wow, how did they decide to blend those colors together in such a way, and why? I wonder how hard it is to get that right? How long might it take me to learn the same technique?”

      But when I look at a piece of art made by AI, I think, disappointedly, “Oh, they didn’t. Nobody leaned the technique to paint this, there may not be any feeling behind it, or any point at all, other than ‘it looks good.’” It’s just not impressive.

      And I’m pretty sure that most people could learn how to prompt successfully in a matter of days or weeks. Real artists practice their craft for years, learning and perfecting techniques and often developing their own unique style.

    • socphoenix@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      How does it increase earning potential? Best case it would flood the market with shit and result in less income due to either dilution of spending amongst thousands of idiots using “ai” or destroy the need for a market in the first place. If everything is ai why would I pay the “artist” instead of just going to stablediffusion or something similar?