So this is really fascinating. I actually saw it first without the information that it was partially generated (most of the background art) by AI.
And not knowing that beforehand my only real impression was that it was ok if a bit generic. It will be interesting when it’s applied to other media or roles. There are already tons of rumors that the online music services are using AI in deciding which songs and artists to promote (and where as well)
Netflix stirs fears by using AI-assisted background art in short anime film | Ars Technica
Testing the waters.
Art as a profession is headed for certain doom.
I remember coworkers losing their job categories when print shops started going computer->press, bypassing camera, stripping, and platemaking. Paste-up people got the axe a decade or so before that. Nobody stood up and cried “stop!” back then—it was too advantageous for everyone else—and now they’re coming for the artists. That’s progress.
Yeah, that’s gonna make things a lot easier/cheaper. There’s no stopping it. Condolences to those affected negatively.
By the end of the decade no photographers, no artists, no writers, no poets…
What a depressing future…I declare it ARTificial…
Who needs people…I think SkyNet asked the same question…
I reckon a fair number will be able to eke out careers from people willing to pay for ‘the story behind the art’/knowing that a human made it. Perhaps supplemented by teaching, whether online courses or in person.
People are prepared to even pay/fund people by subscription, sometimes for no commitment of anything in return.
But, yeah, as careers at companies making products; those people are going to be in for a hard time.
I can give a fairly valid reason for now at least why human artists are needed…
The ongoing narrative of tech at least until this point has been that while technology can be a disruptor, the other benefits such as increased productivity in the larger sense benefits workers. Such as the oft sited idea the job of secretary morphed into roles like assistant or office manager.
This time it feels different to me anyway as some of the applications this tech has been put to actually work remarkably well, certainly meeting the “good enough” bar in a lot of cases.
I know of at least one of our customers that is already using AI tech to clear or escalate level one support tickets for instance.
And to reference the original topic, as I stated it wasn’t obvious to me that it was AI generated and perhaps in the large context it again hits the bar of “good enough” eg. In this case the quality of the storytelling was more important and succeeds or fails on that basis.
TLDR I think this is only now getting started in a meaningful way, and I’m not at all optimistic that there won’t be some serious collateral damage.
Time will tell of course.
Nobody cries about the the jobs lost from previous technological improvements. Still far be it for me to be the one to say ‘this time it’s different’ but this time it feels different when it’s ‘replacing jobs that are simple logic problems’ vs ‘replacing jobs that are supposed to be the pinnacle of human creativity by typing in a prompt.’
Just my angry 2 cents.
Amazing where we were “supposed to be” in 2001 and where we are today wiping away creativity in 2023…
I don’t think there is as much to fear from AI as y’all are thinking. It’s just too hard to get it to reproduce consistent results. That coupled with the fact that it honestly can’t create anything new–but simply scan pertinent training data to come to a conclusion that has been come to a thousand times before.
Where it will be a help eventually is quickly creating boring copy and helping creatives generate new ideas. Coders are already using it to create code more quickly, but someone has to be accountable to the code and make sure it doesn’t have bugs. That means knowledge of how the code is working to begin with.