• ZILtoid1991@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      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.