Do creatives maintain relevance because lay people can't edit AI generated works?

Comments

• yakko@feddit.uk ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • lath@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    No worries, they gonna steal some brain tissues and make a whole bunch of unethical neural networks.

    source

    • BooBees@fedinsfw.app ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      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.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  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.

  source
• Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  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.

  source

  • wuphysics87@lemmy.ml ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    I mean from the standpoint that anyone can generate an image, but not everyone can “make it look right.”

    source

    • Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      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.

      source
• chuckleslord@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  AI looks like bland shit. Anyone drawing something by hand gets infinity more points that the slop machine.

  source

  • cattywampas@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • Bougie_Birdie@piefed.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      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

      source
• HubertManne@piefed.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  creatives remain relevant because being creative is a good quality.

  source
• RoddyStiggs@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  They maintain relevance because art is a human experience and robots have no home within it.

  source

  • wuphysics87@lemmy.ml ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    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

    source

    • RoddyStiggs@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      You find me an objective standard of “good enough” that we can all agree on and I’ll find you bigfoot.

      source