|
Top-level
@AuthorJMac @Uddelhexe I'm sure you must be right, but I'm not sure I see it. As I understand it, AI's good at churning out boiler-plate prose and images (likely plagiarised and probably wrong) and spotting anomalies in account-books or X-rays, but none of that sounds much like fun. The risk, as I see it, is managers will assume AI will boost productivity, and give workers twice the "fun" in half the time, to make them four times as profitable. But that's a tale as old as time-and-motion men. 12 comments
@kanrei @AuthorJMac @Uddelhexe It's definitely a threat, I'm just not sure how much it'll be. For, even if AI does manage to solve the problem of the seven-fingered foot, there's still the question of plagiarism and, if there's a positive aspect to lawyers earning more than artists, that'll be it. Still, I've seen typists, typesetters and music copyists go extinct in my lifetime, thanks to technology, so it's possible that AI will do for illustrators what, say, photography did for painters.  I hope not, cause the forementioned functions that went extinct were not those producing new art or writing, just doing technics around it. And fotography did not erase painters. They do very much exist and paint. Photography is just an added artform that still uses the human mind to search for the motive, set in in scene, focus...but Ai is for one not producing something new and cannot live out of its own products. It needs human inpact @Uddelhexe @kanrei @AuthorJMac Indeed, and so it's interesting that music composers seem more intrigued by AI than threatened. I think that may be the same for those with "fun jobs" - like illustrators and graphic designers - who, if AI is used at all, will still need to guide it. So I don't see them being affected in the way typesetters were. Then again, I've been wrong about things before... @wibble @AuthorJMac @Uddelhexe Oh not sure how it went for painters, but at least they still exist. I actually feel like I should draw more with traditional media again, because of AI. :/ Either way, I don't want artistic jobs being gone. (Not even knowing an alternative, feels like anything done on a computer would be at risk.) @kanrei @AuthorJMac @Uddelhexe What happened to painters (very roughly) was impressionism. They reacted to the threat by moving away from realistic painting, and to the novelty by embracing the informal, everyday subjects photography enabled. It did put some people out of work - e.g. illustrators for books and newspapers (crime-scene illustrators existed, as do court-room artists), but the great ones kept working and the others bought cameras. For even photography can sometimes be fun. @wibble @AuthorJMac @Uddelhexe Yeah, I just see for myself, I wouldn't enjoy making AI pictures instead of drawing right away what I had in mind. It is ok to dabble around in it to see what it can do, and I sure want to try it out more. But overall I wouldn't find it very fulfilling. @wibble @AuthorJMac @Uddelhexe But it's unlikely anyway that the idea will be that artists have to switch to it, they likely cut out people and it will be a low paying job, because everyone can ask the AI things and AI devs sure will make the AI more in a direction, where one can easily use it. (I mean like compare Stable Diffusion with Bing AI for example.) @wibble @AuthorJMac @Uddelhexe About photography, I sure see the fun in there. From what I know, it also started out with trying to imitate what oil paintings did, but sure now it feels like its own thing, serving different purpose than paintings etc. (But ok that's probably because the idea to show reality through paintings got switched over to photography, or at least partially. Like scientific illustration is still a thing. People still buy painted portraits etc.) @wibble @AuthorJMac @Uddelhexe With AI it feels kinda hard though to see what is AI and what is not. I sure find it more and more difficult to differentiate. Sure when one uses AI one can actually even see which AI or model might have been used for a picture. When photography came out, it sure looked different than paintings.Thus not really trying to be the same thing? @kanrei @AuthorJMac @Uddelhexe Sure. It's something to worry about. But maybe it always has been. Earlier today I was reminded of the poet David Jones, who wrote: "When the technicians manipulate the dead limbs of our culture as though it yet had life, have mercy on us." That was 63 years ago. And here we are. Still, to the original point of why AI seems to rob our lives of fun, that's more a question of who's got the money - they've always robbed our fun, one way or another. |
Gregory's Server
@wibble @AuthorJMac @Uddelhexe Well for art, it certainly isn't fun if we would use AI instead of creating our own thing. So yes in that regard it would take away the fun part. Plus people might lose jobs, because companies rather use AI to make pictures. (Even if someone would do those, they might just need one person for it and not more, which they might have needed before.)
That's what we mean with losing the fun jobs.