As an artist, I think it is a net negative for us. Disregarding the copyright issue, I think it’s also consolidating power into large corporations, going to kill learning fundamental skills (rip next generation of artists), and turn the profession into a low skill minimum wage job. Artists that spent years learning and perfecting their skills will be worth nothing and I think it’s a pretty depressing future for us. Anways thoughts?
Like everyone said, with every technology replacing human labor, the problem is only capitalism. I want to add that AI art will never replace human art because AI art is only useful, while human art is meaningful. Put up an AI-made art in a museum and nothing happens, it’s a picture on a wall, because the AI has nothing to say, nothing to make sense of. When watching human art, we start thinking about the why and the how, the History and worldview, the emotions, the thoughts behind it.
The reaction from artists community on the internet was very telling of how low the meaning of “art” have become in the capitalist world. Those extremely skilled individuals don’t see their talent being used for anything else than making profit for corporations, they can’t imagine being supported as artists making meaningful art and showing it to the people around them who will enjoy reflecting on it.
Actually I disagree. The AI has something to say but it would be rather related to the mathematics, 1s and 0s, the algorithm generating the art rather than the artistic aspect.
My point was that, we can automate the process of creating images, but art as a form human expression cannot be automated. I’m not sure what you meant, but I don’t think it is contradictory right?
Following this, I think we get to the question: is all image production ‘art’ even if it’s done by humans?
Well it depends widely on your premises, plus there are a lot of philosophical answers to what is art. Worse, I don’t see a standard Marxist answer to that. We could consider that separating art as a form of meaningful expression and art as the craft of images is pointless since both are labor therefore both are either free or alienated. But we could also consider that all form of signaling and practical applications of image-making aren’t sufficient to cultural life and therefore “art” without practical purpose should be distinguished in order to be preserved by materially supporting artists
I agree that this is a worse problem under capitalism, but hypothetically under socialism, would there be UBI? (As I understand it, UBI is antithetical to socialism, as it gives all your power to the state). Or would artists get a cut of $ for every generated image (as it is currently, no artists are paid or part of these AI companies).
The precise inner workings of a future fully communist society will be determined through trial and error and trying to imagine them is utopian. Though we can start to think about art under the dictatorship of the proletariat. In my opinion it is reasonable to envision the practice of art as a profession the same way we manage academic research, with autonomous institutions that pay salaries to students and professors so they continue practicing their discipline both freely and with excellence.
Of course amateur art should also be made as accessible as possible