You underestimate people’s willingness to sacrifice other people’s work for the benefit of a few corporations and their cult like leadership. Already some argue passionately that ai stealing data is just like humans learning from other humans. Let alone that once a new trend starts ai will have to catchup - meaning that for a while it will lag so sufficient data is available for it to steal again. Also if we completely push artists out due to ever lower costs there will be little progress in original content.
Yes there will be a market for human artists as much as there is a market for horses to pull things. There are still jobs for horses now, but their number is way lower than just 150 years ago. Not great news if you are a horse (or a human with a job).
Yes but smaller. There is a lot of content outside acclaimed paintings that we will not benefit from, and most important, people wont get to practice. And art is all about practice. For every 10k mediocre artists we replace with ai we will miss that one great artist that was taken out of the pool because they couldnt practice because the job no longer exists. I see the benefits of the technology, but the price we will pay will be too large. Same could be said about photoshop but photoshop is a tool. Ai is a mind.
There is one star trek episode (think it was TNG but not sure) where the local civilization is totally dependent on some benevolent AI that their anchestors built. It broke but due to their reliance on it, they lost all expertise to repair it.
Great, now i have to watch the whole series again just to find that episode.
On a serious note i am now confused. Because at the same time i see ai generated art as a tool for creating new art, a facilitator. Still i dont agree people’s ip should be used without their consent. Oh boy progress is confusing sometimes.
