| Sorry, whichever way you flip this, Inspiration is used again and again to hide the real intent of this technology: To remove artistic contribution from the corporate expenses list. Period. And this is just the beginning. Illustrators are the low-hanging fruit, they have no unions to protect them, they were undervalued for ages even before the digital age. Human made digital art will be competing with synthesis and generative processes for minimum pay, the regular Joe will have no doubt that the AI "Art" is better. The main problem with this tech is that I have no clear answer of the question: Who benefits from this "advancement"? Artists? Or corporations? To become a good artist, I have spent all my life practicing from anatomy through composition and color theory. Can you imagine the stupidity of my choice? Any schmuck with a computer and prompt collection will be a master of Arts soon. The war between Hollywood and Silicon Valley has reached the new high.
The "geniuses" which scraped all the stock websites and created this monstrosity, in my view, must be named "The Spirit Crushers" from now on. But hey, it is too late. The genie is out of the bottle. So who is next? I stopped my successful art career years ago over different reasons.
But now I see my choice in a different light. |
Why are they? Why are teachers, nurses, policemen, etcetera undervalued?
I think this is because these jobs don't scale. You won't be able to show progression through time where you churn out 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, ... artworks/week. Nor can a schoolteacher aspire to teach 30, 100, 300, 1000 kids a year.
Our economic system is addicted to growth. S&P 500 must increase 4% a year or we're all doomed.
The ridiculousness of this in a post-peak-everything world is glaringly obvious.
I'm sorry you chose a form of human expression that is incompatible with infinite exponential economic growth.