[aiartapps]

We have a deep answer and a business answer.

Business answer: Automation saves money; makes humans do more things. The AI-generated content doesn't has to be perfect to be useful. Like 80% good is enough!

Deep answer: We believe artists nor human art isn't going anywhere! We enjoy the process of art being created. Look at Insta/TikTok/Shorts how artists are still growing by sharing their creation process.

Conclusion:

Art for business will be automated. As we said, it only has to fail 20% of the time to be acceptable.

Artists can leverage their personal story and authenticity to still thrive in the era of AI-generated content.

[headsoup]

Who believes artists and human art isn't going anywhere? So this business art is just replacing art no one was doing, or it was just happening for free somehow?

Do you think any of the artists that created the content the AI learns from are going to get any royalties for this business use?

[orbital-decay]

This is a bit of a red herring. Nobody in their right mind will just copy another artist 1:1 and make money with it. That would be plagiarism, and that won't have value anyway.

Even imitators (check out how much of those the artists like Ilya Kuvshinov have on Artstation, for example) vary their style a bit. That doesn't save them from being samey and boring, though. Some imitators like those of Jacek Yerka are less boring, yet they still have no message to tell.

Artists have been driving themselves out of the industry for decades, without any ML. What can be easily automated with the current tools (which is not a lot) isn't worth saving at all. I suspect that most people perpetuating the panic never actually dived into AI art, learning what the tools are and aren't good for; they mostly enter a prompt, think it's magic, and start doomposting on Twitter. This is probably how artists felt with early 3D CGI, except we didn't have Twitter back then.

[headsoup]

No, I think "it's going to happen anyway because things happened in the past" is the poor argument.

These AI companies are wholesale scraping art without permission, payment or credit. You just have to look at how they act in other, more litigation heavy industries to see what they're getting away with.

I'm not sure how your argument relates to businesses not paying for artists?

[orbital-decay]

>These AI companies are wholesale scraping art without permission, payment or credit.

I specifically mentioned Ilya Kuvshinov, who is one of the most copied artists on Artstation; you can see so much of his rendering, poses, lighting, ideas around that it gets uncanny. Have all those imitators (who make money with it) paid anything to him for scraping his art into their minds? Maybe he got credited? Maybe they asked him for permission? I think it's neither of those.

Artists have been copying each other much more blatantly for ages, and they never had any qualms about it, they've just been diminishing their own value. What's changed?

[headsoup]

Artists most certainly do care once they have the finances and value to fight/protect it. Not all of them of course, but there's a difference between heavy inspiration and plagiarism, as per the music industry.

I'd say the key difference with AI is its scale, which can widely out-produce any genuine artist by a massive amount x by many, many multiples of 'AI artist' personas used.