Raw LLM Responses

The sentiment around how A.I. won't replace artists is quite dishonest. It's almost harmful to claim that A.I. won't take over jobs or that it isn't profitable. The gradual replacement of graphic designers has already begun, and it's even replacing tech jobs at a rapid pace. AI-generated images nowadays are hardly distinguishable from artwork drawn by people. Comparing crypto to A.I. is somewhat unfair since the core idea behind them involves investments and public interests, whereas A.I. isn't confined to those conditional factors. In the next 5-10 years, most, if not all, creative jobs could be reduced to a fraction of what they are today, and most art might be viewed as a hobby or niche. Asmond made a great contrast to what art could become; art would likely evolve into something similar to factory-made shirts versus handmade shirts. I am an artist myself, and I fully understand the distaste for these A.I. programs, but spreading the notion that an art career is safe could hurt some people. (Though, to be honest, claiming that any career is safe in the next 20 years is also misleading. As someone planning to be a neurosurgeon, I fear that A.I. will advance enough to replace my dream job before I graduate from medical school.) There have been statements about significant pushback against companies attempting to integrate AI, which seem very one-sided. How many of these pushbacks are from people in the creative field, and how many are actually from the average consumer? Would most people genuinely care whether a work is made by an A.I. or by a real person? I wager that they don't care, especially if the A.I. products are cheaper. The average consumer and corporations do not value your artwork and its worth. Corporations want to maximize profits while minimizing costs. To them, artists are like Just Stop Oil protesters—a nuisance. This perspective may hurt some feelings, but quality does not matter as much anymore since most AI art closely resembles real art. What matters now is quantity, speed, and cost. Sadly, A.I. is just more cost-effective, so unless you can create an acceptable photorealistic piece in 15 minutes while only charging $4, you cannot compete. So I kindly ask everyone to stop with the denial and accept that A.I. poses a very real threat to replace artists, at least in the job market. Or, at the very least, don't try to deny the potential outcomes that lie ahead. If people hear these claims and enroll in art school, taking out loans for thousands of dollars only to graduate and find themselves replaced by a machine, then, practically, they could ruin their lives. Treat art as a hobby, not a profession.