Raw LLM Responses

Art is far more than technique. Art is very subjective. Like Jean Renoir said: when technique is perfected, everything is ugly, unless by genius artists who can transcend technique. Art is a thing that we humans do simply because we want to, and we will always love to do it, whether being paid for it or not. People who say stuff like “let human artists become obsolete and replaced in the name of progress, like horse carriagers after cars came along” really have a shallow perception of art, and wouldn’t really ever hire and pay a lot of money for any artist to do anything for them anyway (I definitely wouldn’t pay anyone for a mere card illustration). Art is not simply a job or product, it’s not a chore! Machines never truly replace what we love and want to do in life, what makes us human, the pleasures of life that make it worthy living. A machine is not gonna keep me from, for example, swimming if i find it fun! This is even truer for art: each person is unique, and we love to develop our own unmistakable style and vision! There is so much detail that goes into a work of art besides a description and broad strokes that one person can feed into an AI program. If I just gave some basic prompt/description for AI art programs, and then did nothing with the resulting art, I would feel deeply ashamed if I said that I actually made this art. It's fun to play with, sure, but it doesn't make me an artist. Maybe AI can be a valid artistic tool, but it will not be like this! Animators use interpolation software to help their work in animation, but they are always constantly paying attention to everything the program does, and course-correcting anything that goes quirky. It's very different from people who just throw animation into an AI software, press render to interpolate, and hope for the best (Noodle's YouTube channel has a good video on this). There is always an insane amount of nuance and detail that goes into anything, not to mention the insane and infinite diversity of styles and approaches, each one with its own infinite amount of nuances. AI is generic. If you want something to be truly exactly like what you want, you have to do it yourself, polish and rewrite or redraw a lot yourself. AI is just a starting guide at best. And maybe something to eliminate the parts of art that are just a chore. Suppose that we can someday make an AI that is actually sentient and creative like us humans, feels emotion like us, has a unique identity, and so on, as we see in sci-fi. This AI would effectively be an individual person too, and it doesn't replace me any more than any new human being being born replaces me. Each person is unique. Such AI should be granted human rights. AI is a hot topic in sci-fi. Some sci-fi is pessimistic, loves to show stories of AI overtaking out world. I’m much more sympathetic and believer in ideas of harmonious and happy coexistence. Like I said, if AI ever gets to the level of sentience, emotions, uniqueness, and so on, why would it not be considered a human? I firmly believe that what makes us human is our sentience, emotions and uniqueness, it’s not this sack of meat that our bodies are. Anything with those three atributes I mentioned. Point is: Maybe AI will replace humans for many card illustrations, many ads, many drawings in YouTube’s thumbnails, tapestries, generic stuff like that, which doesn’t need to be truly unique or have a person’s individual and unmistakable vision in the details, it doesn’t have to be special (though it definitely still can be, tapestry hasn’t stopped existing as an art). This has already happened to an extent regarding translators, for example, thanks to Google Translate. But people will never stop wanting to create and make art, regardless if they are being paid or not. Art is not a chore, it's something that we actively enjoy doing. It's fun hard work. Art is part of what makes us human, that's why we'll never stop doing it. Not to mention that art is never just technique. Ultimately, these are the reasons why I feel many comments on this whole topic are often sensationalist scare-mongering. I also recommend episode 43 of the 2000s Astro Boy anime. My mind always goes back to it whenever this scare-mongering happens. Industrialization didn't kill the entire art of tapestry, for example. Or pottery. Photography didn’t kill painting, and it became its own artform eventually. Cinema didn't kill live theater. AI is very vague and generic because you can't make a very fine-tuned work of art just with a text prompt. AI would be like the homogeneization of the MCU, whose films sometimes feel like made by AI, and people are tiring of them. AI can't really create something perfectly from a person's head. It can't read minds. A text prompt can't ever come close to encapsulate all the insane amount of possibilities in art. This is why AI will simply be a tool. A job I can see AI eliminating is in-betweening animator. It is a really tedious process in animation, and top animators generally don't do this entirely for their sequences, lower-level animators will do it. Animators already use AI interpolation software to quicken the animated process anyway nowadays. Some people working with ads, concept art and book illustrations can also lose their jobs to AI, or start earning less. AI would help with these more mundane and uncreative parts of the making art. Or the more utilitarian stuff. Like how industrialization killed a lot of jobs of people making furniture, though the art certainly still exists, and always will. Technique is not everything in art. Film director Jean Renoir said that when technique is perfected, everything is ugly, except by genius artists who can transcend technique. I see his point. We care about the films from the Lumiére Brothers showing normal life, they were a groundbreaking achievement. I can film those same things today, and far more easily, and with far greater image quality, and no one would care. And there will always be people seeking alternatives elsewhere. A major complaint against the MCU, for example, is how generic and corporate it often feels, like these movies are just results of an AI algorythm being asked to regurgitate what's currently popular. People are tiring of this, and specially movie fans will also be looking for more personal art, far cheaper and outside of Hollywood. And even if the future is filled with generic AI movies in the mainstream, there will always be people looking for something different elsewhere. And again, it you want AI to truly fulfill anyone's imagination perfectly, it can't be a one-click button thing, it has to become a tool like CGI is. The possibilites of art from any generic text prompt are infinite, it can't fulfill anyone's exact vision and/or self-expression. Also, digital paintings didn't make oil paintings obsolete. And even in more utilitarian stuff, like furniture, there are still people who make art with them, and money with with them. I feel sad when I see people who don't understand or care about art. They say stuff like "artists, your days are counted, deal with it, don't be luddites, your job isn't different from anyone else's, AI will soon become better than humans, just like what we have seen in the past many times". I also don't like people who believe that AI will someday kill mankind. I'm optimistic, I believe in healthy cooperation. I saw a guy online saying that art is nothing special, just a job and industry like any other, and that machines should replace humans in everything that machines do faster and "better". This person clearly doesn't care or understand art at all. He just sees it as disposable product. The artist as no different than a Walmart employee. He doesn’t the subjectivity and fun that actually is crucial in art, and why we always make it, AI art won't ever be "objectively better", and yet some people treat art as if it was chess or math. Many people can't make a living with art alone, but they still make art as a hobby they like and want to share to the world. Some people online seem to worship technology completely, and would be happy to destroy everything that makes us human in the name of technology. Next time, they will say humanity as a whole needs to be replaced by machines. Some people also say bullshit like "humans learn from other humans, how is that different from AI using works of art", as if AI was remotely like a human. It doesn't have an identity, emotion, self-expression, sentience, it doesn't learn like humans do. So many people seem to be deeply pessimistic and always expect the worst for mankind's future. The "robot apocalypse" is a notion I just don't believe it will ever come true. But many people seem to do, and are always believing it will come soon, and that everyone who disagrees with them will have to admit the mistake. I don't buy it. And they always use the same card of "just wait for the exponentional evolution of this, you lack imagination in thinking that humans are anything special", while forgetting the core aspects that already limit what can be done (no text prompt can describe all details of a work of art, it will always need lots of fine-tuning to get any AI art to look exactly like your visions, AIs can't read minds, that's why it's only a tool). All this panic we see now makes me even more sure that when sci-fi stories depict a future society struggling to accept conscious and sentient robots, prejudiced against those robots, these stories are quite spot-on if AI ever reaches that level. I have always said that if AI ever becomes human-like, it deserves human rights. Also, we can't even come remotely close to solve all possible chess plays, it's inconceivable, an unfathomable number of possibilites. Imagine solving all possibilities for art. We might as well be omniscient and omnipotent gods if we ever are able to do this...