Almost, the likeliest answer is that CEOs and the ruling class have no fucking clue whether AI can be good enough to replace graphic designers but they also know that this was never the point, automation is a weapon of class war.
Even if the entire industry crashes and decides it does actually have to hire lots of human artists, those artists will be hired as alternatives to cheap AI and graphic design will have permanently been dissected and destroyed as a decent career for hardworking people who may or may not be the most talented people in the world.
sorter_plainview@lemmy.today 4 months ago
This is something people always miss in these discussions. A graphic designer working for a medium marketing company is replaceable with a Stable Diffusion or Midjourney, because there, quality is not really that important. They work on quantity and “AI” is much more “efficient” in creating the quantity. That too even without paying for stock photos.
High end jobs will always be there in every profession. But the vast majority of the jobs in a sector do not belong to the “high end” category. That is where the job loss is going to happen. Not for Beeple Crap level artists.
off_brand_@beehaw.org 4 months ago
I would question the efficiency claim. Uber and the like claimed incredible market dominance, driving local food delivery and taxi services out of business. They’re only now really being forced to find profitability.
I wonder if AI is going to be similar. The powerful models right now, as I understand it, have ludicrous power requirements. I don’t know their balance sheets, but in the current race to market share, I’m skeptical that most of these services are in the green.
What that ultimately says about the future I don’t really know. Like it could be we reach some point where the models get better, or more specialized, or something and profit arrive. Or maybe theres a point of diminishing returns where the profit just can’t be made, and once the hype falls off (and investors stop clamoring for AI) these companies will ask what they’re getting for the money spent
sorter_plainview@lemmy.today 4 months ago
Replacing a human with any form of tech has been a long standing practice. Usually in this scenario the profitability or the efficiency takes a known pattern. Unfortunately what you said is the exact way the market always operated in the past, and will be operating in the future.
The general pattern is a new tech is invented or a new opportunity is identified, then a bunch of companies get into the market as competing entities. They offer competing prices to customers in an attempt to gain market dominance.
But the problem starts when low profit drives some companies to a situation where either they have to go bust or dissolve the wing, or sell the company to a competitor. Usually after this point a dominant company will emerge in a market segment. Then the monopolies are created. After this point companies either increase the price or exploit customers to get more money, and thereby start making profits. This has been the exact pattern in tech industries for several decades.
In the case of AI also, this is why companies are racing to capture market dominance. Early adopters always get a small advantage and help them get prominence in the segment.
nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 4 months ago
They are absolutely eating the real costs in order to gain market share. I suspect that there’s going to be a mad dash to rehire humans when the bill comes due and the VCs want profits.
ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 months ago
You can only cut out so many people in so many industries before the economy collapses. I’d like to see what it would look like if like 30% of people lost their careers to AI. Maybe there would finally be a push for UBI and/or stronger tax laws for large corporations.