[mrtksn]

Seriously, the "creatives are screwed" narrative has fallen apart for me because the stuff made in AI has proven to be worthless.

Why is it worthless? Because the point of art was to communicate or convey something with other people and the AI has no idea because its not human.

A few words or a sequence of sounds can be enough to transfer great deal of feeling and meaning because we run about the same software and as a result we can generate the same output with a little bit of input. This is all done by looking inside and externalise it, that is someone feels something and makes a song from it and that song can be used to regenerate feelings in other people.

The current AI tech doesn't have a way to do that because doesn't have a way to look inside. At best, it can imitate things within some context but the output doesn't have any meaning at all. The most successful AI content was maybe the "Pope wearing Balenciaga" image but that wasn't because the AI thought it mean something but because someone looked inside and thought this can be interesting.

So no, AI isn't taking over the creative process. AI is taking over the mechanical part of it only, that is the part where the artist traditionally had to master a method of production or an instrument.

The AI evangelists keep pushing short videos or drawings that look "professional" and claiming that Hollywood is done, artists are screwed etc but those are worthless outside of the context that AI made it. No one is interested in paying or even spending time to consume this content, its extremely dull.

[tsukikage]

Get a room in any hotel run by one of the large chains - Accor, Hilton, IHG...

On the wall, you will find an Obligatory Art. Sometimes it's just a canvas with 3-4 stripes of paint: you can imagine a purely mechanical process for churning these out; a conveyor belt with brushes hanging over it, perhaps. Other times it's a little more creative. Each room is slightly different. You can also sometimes see these in cheap home decor shops. It may not be much, but it does the job - it really does make the space more pleasant than just blank walls would be.

There are a lot of rooms to fill. Someone has to make all these. It may not be all that creative, but it sure beats working in, say, a produce packing plant. Meanwhile, it's hard to make a living in art - some are wildly successful, yes, but the tip of that pyramid is very small and getting there takes as much luck as skill; and there are a lot of people further down the pyramid who also need to eat while waiting for their big break.

Those are the jobs at risk from generative AI in its current state.

[mrtksn]

Sure, worthless filler images is something that AI can do.

But these jobs never existed in first place, that generic art is done by contractors who charge for the materials.

[camillomiller]

I fully agree, but that’s not what all music is. Most commercial music is pure craft created by expensive professionals that the music corporations would be very happy to swap with expendables and cheap AI models.

It boils down to the economic model and the financial and political choices like in every creative industry.

Regarding potential displacement, I would apply the stock photography theory to any creative industry. Ask yourself: is what I do in my creative endeavor the equivalent of stock content for the visual imaging industry? If the answer is yes, you might want to future proof your craft. If the answer is no (as in, your art is more than a simple soulless piece of easily digested and quantity-oriented content) then you will be fine in the long run after the current unsustainable hype cycle dies out.

[mrtksn]

I think even people who are writing songs for cash are actually looking inside, they just perfected a method of doing it and can do it all the time. AI wouldn't be able to do that unless is designed to work like human and has human experience.

The stock photography stuff is either documenting event or displaying low effort illustration for low effort productions. I guess AI can be good at churning Apple images for low effort Apple news.

[hackerlight]

> Because the point of art was to communicate or convey something with other people and the AI has no idea because its not human.

This is mixing up art with the art industry. Artists will struggle just like copywriters are struggling after the arrival of LLMs. Not everything in the art industry is trying to break new artistic ground or communicate some deep emotion to the listsener. For much of the industry, "good enough" will suffice if it's 10x cheaper.

[mrtksn]

I disagree, the industry participants still need to have this ability to look inside when doing their work even if they do routine/mundane work. That's how you get people who are better or worse in their jobs.

Maybe with exception of strictly technical work like people who remove background in mages or calibrate instruments. Those people are screwed yes.