They maintain relevance because people still prefer their work, for the most part. Art that was made by someone for a purpose is messy, weird, touching, and original in ways that machine generated ‘content’ never can be. Until they figure out how to make a machine neurotic, horny, and spiteful I will maintain this position.
No worries, they gonna steal some brain tissues and make a whole bunch of unethical neural networks.
Those already exist and have already been hooked up to systems and are interacting with them. It’s crazy scary and like you said crazy unethical. The first ones I heard about were playing doom, the video game, so I’m assuming there’s already drone and missile experimental programs using human brain tissues as part of guidance and decision making.
The fruit fly connectome? I heard about that. It’s orders of magnitude simpler than anything approaching mammalian, at least for now. Hopefully this is as far as they get with it for now. To me the immediately insidious thing is that they released it freely. Likely to normalise the mistreatment of virtual intelligences ahead of more advanced models getting uploaded.
Not fruit fly, it was 200,000 human brain cells.
That’s new to me. Given how they got the tissue and what the research is actually for, I’m slightly less worried. It’s still iffy though.
AI looks like bland shit. Anyone drawing something by hand gets infinity more points than the slop machine.
The insidious part is that we notice the obvious AI art that has that certain “AI” look to it, but we completely breeze past the stuff that doesn’t and is all around us.
There’s also all those people who are rightfully pissed about AI who then call out human creators because they draw / write like AI. All the while, actual AI gen is getting more passable with each day
The situation is super lame
If you say “creatives” but think “making money”, then no really meaningful answer is possible.
We should rather talk about creativity itself. While current AI is just generators, it becomes obvious that they must lack creativity. So creativity is one of the things that fundamentally separates humans from AI. Creativity will endure. Creatives will always be there.
I mean from the standpoint that anyone can generate an image, but not everyone can “make it look right.”
Sure, some have more artistic abilities than others. That is not strictly the same as creativity, because most of it is craftsmanship. Learning and practising.
I think they maintain relevance because they can still be creative. The best uses of AI for artistic measures that I’ve seen still shows a creative idea and a decent filter to only accept results of a certain minimum standard.
creatives remain relevant because being creative is a good quality.
They maintain relevance because art is a human experience and robots have no home within it.
My question comes from anyone can make a thing with ai, but is that “good enough” to that “creator” or will traditional artists still have a role becaude it isn’t
You find me an objective standard of “good enough” that we can all agree on and I’ll find you bigfoot.
