With all the fuzz about IA image “stealing” illustrator job, I am curious about how much photography changed the art world in the 19th century.

There was a time where getting a portrait done was a relatively big thing, requiring several days of work for a painter, while you had to stand still for a while so the painter knew what you looked like, and then with photography, all you had to do was to stand still for a few minutes, and you’ll get a picture of you printed on paper the next day.

How did it impact the average painter who was getting paid to paint people once in their lifetime.

  • NotAnonymousAtAll@feddit.de
    1·
    1 year ago

    It sure did have a big impact, comparable to what some people expect to happen soon with AI.

    However, I think your framing misses the main point of why many artists today are wary about AI: They are not just being replaced, their own work is used as a building block for the tools that will replace them; and they were not asked for permission and don’t even get any compensation for that.

    • Vlyn@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      1 year ago

      If you have a basic understanding how AI works then this argument doesn’t hold much water.

      Let’s take the human approach: I’m going to look at all the works of popular painters to learn their styles. Then I grab my painting tools and create similar works.

      No credit there, I still used all those other works as input and created by own based on them.

      With AI it’s the same, just in a much bigger capacity. If you ask AI to redraw the Mona Lisa you won’t get a 1:1 copy out, because the original doesn’t exist in the trained model, it’s just statistics.

      Same as if you tell a human to recreate the painting, no matter how good they are, they’ll never be able to perfectly reproduce the original work.

      • Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz
        1·
        1 year ago

        The thing is, with a certain model you could get a perfect 1:1 copy but that’s not really the point. I have a degree that includes machine learning and I believe it’s imperative that we have legislation that protects content owners and puts restrictions on what data you’re allowed to use to train your models. Not because I don’t understand but because I do understand.

        Haphazardly introducing this technology at a large scale in society will come with serious consequences, not to mention the consequences to privacy if we don’t curtail what data that companies are allowed to scrape from the internet just because they throw in buzzwords about “AI” in somewhere.

        This is fundamentally not about being pro-technology or anti-technology, it’s about how we value private citizens versus corporations.