Comment by gassi
7 days ago
Almost every talented artist with a public presence that has spoken on AI art, has spoken against it's generation, the use of AI tools, and the harm it's causing to their communities. The few established artists who are proponents of AI art (Lioba Brueckner comes to mind) have a financially incentive to do so, since they sell tools or courses teaching others with less/no talent to do the same.
The tools aren't going anywhere. Fans were outraged at the look and artists raged against the transition from cel animation to digital. Almost nothing serious is produced via cel now and the art adjusted by making extremely complex and beautiful art that couldn't have been done on cels.
There's a real legal fight that needs to go on right now about these companies stealing style, voices, likeness, etc. But it's really beginning to feel like there's a generation of artists that are hampering their career by saying they are above it instead of using the tools to enhance their art to create things they otherwise couldn't.
I see kids in high school using the tools like how I used Photoshop when I was younger. I see unemployed/under employed designers lamenting what the tools have done.
Art, like science, advances one funeral at a time.
The issue for them is that once the tools exists, adoption only moves in one direction. And it will enable a whole wave of new artists. I sympathize with them, but if I enjoy GenAI art creation and see it as my genuine creative outlet, why would I stop? What about thousands of others exploring this?
If at some point I also get very good at it; and the tech, models and tools mature, this will turn into a real avenue; who are they to tell us not to pursue it?
Why didn't you mention financial incentives of many outspoken critics of AI? They feel like their entire livelyhood depends on AI failing. I'd say that's a pretty strong financial incentive.