714

submitted 2 months ago by ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

56 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Oh yes, the evergreen argument of "but previous technologies"...

Digital art did not intent to replace the artist, but instead give them a new kind of canvas, instrument, etc. AI art does. And seeing patterns in the tech industry, AI companies are absolutely trying to drive people out of the creative industry by undercutting them, then to raise prices back again.

The backlash was much more mild, and often those were real elitists. Artist that berated e.g. drawing as a "lesser medium" to watercolors, not just digital art.

[-] nimpnin@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 months ago

Well digital art did not, but photography surely did. And eventually it was for the better for everybody.

[-] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago

AI does not aim to replace the artist. That is beyond the reach of the technology.

Generative AI aims to make one artist produce more art in less time. Same as digital art or photography with respect to portraits.

What capitalist companies do with a technology is always bad. That's why I do not like capitalism. But primitivism and halting progress is not the solution. If capitalism is causing issues maybe the solution is ending capitalism.