Raw LLM Responses

19:35 - In regard to the jump to digital being even close to the same as the jump to AI, lol no. (And I will elaborate on the real world difference in a moment) It's much closer to the jump from making art to commissioning art (except you are commissioning from someone who traces exclusively and doesn't know fundamentals) The move to digital is huge, absolutely. But one of the biggest parts was just the ability to edit something far more easily, and the ability to make and distribute copies of a single work everywhere much more efficiently. My father was a professional photographer, and the breadwinner of the family (before myself and my sibling were born) - he rode out the jump to digital there. A lot of non-experienced photographers suddenly believed they were photographers full time, and a bunch of companies assumed that skills involved in photography were now obsolete, especially as autofocus improved and the first cellphones with cameras came out. Job availability in the genre dropped massively, as everyone had a relative who bought a point and shoot and said they were pro-level. But my dad and his friends either had to change positions, get into other types of photography, or were established enough already to continue working .. because it isn't a replacement. A real photographer will still be better, almost without exception (asduming they are genuinely good at photography) and the tools available just streamline the process or make it easier. There are debates of course, if edited photos are worth the same, or should mean as much, etc. - but real big companies still hire photographers because the fundamentals, and the understanding of what makes something look "good" aren't something that can be done to the same level or detail by a program. Even down to just choosing angles. So there are a lot of paralells between an artist and an ai prompter, and a photographer and a hipster with a second gen iphone or a point-and-shoot. The difference here is that, while interacting differently and with varying levels of understanding and skill, the photographer and hipster are still doing the same thing, and both have intention behind the choices they make, an idea of what they want, and everything is done BY THEM, by going out and getting the photo. However. If you wanted to make the same photo with ai, you don't need to do anything, and in return, you will get something of value equal to your work. That being very little. Just like a businessman in the 2000s/2010s, a prompter doesn't have intentionality or understanding of why domething would look good outside basic preference - the ai makes the decisions, based off no fundamental understanding, relying entirely on the idea that previous artists will have given it all the correct answers. There is no thought process, there is no layer by layer construction of a piece of art, and there is no differentiation between you and anyone else with the same prompt. If you give the same camera and subject to a dozen different photographers, *at least one* would have a unique take, they would use different settings, they would use different angles, prompt the subject or interact with it, do something. There is an artist, THERE, making choices, and understanding the choices behind the subject, background, the intent of the ad the photo will become, etc. etc. etc. - But beyond quality, because I do think thet may improve, even if ultimately not being intentional or the same, the difference is this - My dad was a photographer when film was the only way. My dad was a photographer on digital. My dad is now a photographer using 360° cameras and drone aerial imagery. When the digital camera came out, my dad didn't buy one, sit on the couch, and tell it "give me a photo of xyz". Digital cameras work just like film cameras, with some extra bells and whistles, and with some ease of use features, and less limitations. Traditional art similarly has the same fundamentals as digital art, just without the limitations of what materials you have (as with film) and with some accessibility features (as with digital). They both still rely on the artist to make art. A non-illustrator cannot pick up a tablet and make quality illustrations, any more than a non-photographer can pick up a digital camera and take the highest quality photo (without extreme luck on both counts, anyway). *Believe me. I've tried lmfao.* Digital did not replace artists, it changed how art worked. AI is expressly made and marketed to replace the need for artists - despite the fact that it would fail without them.