AI generated art

Mon0Zer0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
May 24, 2021
Messages
866
2167531678_Realistic_detailed_face_portrait_of_one_handsome_futuristic_geisha_with_element_of_...png
 

Robert Zwilling

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
993
Art isn't just pictures. 3-D printers create sculptures. Literature is part of art.

There's a line in the article that says "Microsoft's spreadsheet software Excel, which - he notes - "didn't put the accountants out of work, I still pay my accountants." Micromini's spreadsheet probably didn't replace accountants but Quicken and other programs like that took a lot of work away from accountants and bookkeepers who got their work from small businesses.

"There is a human instinct that comes to an accountant when they have been in the field for years. When you have years of accounting experience, you are able to spot a problem even before it becomes clear in the numbers. Yeah, it is very easy to want to trust a computer over a human, but only about 5% of our thinking is conscious." From Will Accountants Be Replaced by Computers? by Billy Costo. Perhaps a bit too optimistic and maybe even conflict of interest as Mr Costo's position at his workplace is Director of Technology. His statement is in stark contrast to the results that AI medical diagnostic programs are able to achieve because they can come out ahead of the doctors long years of experience in prescribing the best treatment. However, accountants can be used to shift the information so that a better set of numbers are the outcome. Will AI come equipped with a "shady" button?

In the Art is dead dude article it ends with the line, "But policy makers, he says, need to get the rules right, "so nobody feels ripped off", and money isn't just siphoned off from artists and into the pockets of big corporations." That is a big joke. The galleries, collectors, and critics all work together to make sure that the big money goes to the right people, that is artists who have places in the galleries. Its not unusual for an artist to get in a gallery 10 times what they can get on their own. People with money go to galleries, which makes sense, but the galleries probably are the biggest gate keepers in the world. IMO they are far worse than editors and publishing houses.

At the end of the day, it seems like the prime directive of human owned computers is to separate people from their money, and they are very good at doing that. And they don't care who gets the money or how it is done. AI art might be considered to be legitimately forged blank checks. I think people using AI routines will try to wrestle control of the massive rivers of art supporting money away from the people who handle it now.

The rationalization for most people is that a computer can't do my job. Apparently creating art is a "job" that can be done by AI, while for doctors, accountants, writers, etc., their jobs can't be done by AI, making their jobs supposedly secure, in their dreams. 70 years ago there would be floors of workers handling the paper work for any big business. Those jobs are all long gone now. 20 years ago there were still secretarial pools that were needed to handle their bosses paper work and handle all kinds of other jobs. Thanks to computers without AI, one or 2 secretaries can do the work of the entire pool. And part of that load has been shifted back to management as they can schedule their own work or perform other functions, without needing a person to do that for them.

The most likely scenario is that on the creative side, making new things, is likely to be dominated by AI, while the field of physically using/repairing/working on existing things will be dominated by people. Art and creativity will be the rewards the machines bestow on people for their continued support.
 

Similar threads


Top