[ilaksh]

The technical explanations are going to be technical. Based on what you said it sounds like you want to search through ComfyUI tutorials to find the one that seems just right to you.

AI will eventually basically make artists obsolete just like every other job. You should focus on the creative possibilities of the present. Things like tools or ComfyUI nodes or whatever that allow you to do things like "auto complete" digital paintings based on live sketches, change a style, generate variations, etc. Focus on the capabilities of the tools in terms of enhancing or producing art or testing ideas. Show how an artist can train a Lora on their art and then use a scribble ControlNet to instantly go from sketch to a manifestation of a finished digital painting in their own style and evolve it with each stroke.

[coldcode]

If you make art in postcards, then maybe you will be replaced. Diffusion based AI image generation is limited to a little over 1 megapixel, or double if you use an expander, or you can infinitely grow an initial image with more of the exact same sort of thing. 1 MPx printed at 300 dpi is similar in size to a postcard. Diffusion being able to generate meaningful printed images at 50-200 Mpx is impossible. My art is made at that size (that's 7200 to 14400 pixels per side approximately @ 300 dpi). I don't use AI. I do use my own code.

Try making a Jackson Pollack using AI, AI can only effectively make objective images, given it requiring linking similar images via limited text descriptions.

Making headers for newspaper articles or blog posts on the web might be OK if you don't care much. Check out https://www.quantamagazine.org to see how real artists do things. Their header images are really imaginative given the subject matter, something AI today can't do. It might be instructive to take their articles and try to make header images for them.

If you make videos, then its 1080p which can be done by AI. But video has its own issues with video diffusion generators having limits on continuity. They are getting better, but the longer the clip, the less control you have and the longer it takes to fiddle with the prompt(s). It won't ever replace real movies unless you enjoy the SciFi channel or Sharknado. That would require an entire new kind of AI which we don't have today.

[ilaksh]

I will give you the possibility that some text to image generator models of the moment may not be able to create images that compete with Quanta magazine artists. Maybe. These systems have limitations but I think if you study your own logic you will see that you can't be sure that they will not overcome them in the next 2-20 years.

[echelon]

> AI will eventually basically make artists obsolete just like every other job.

No it won't. We've hit a wall and the low hanging fruit are gone. OpenAI hit a wall and is searching for enterprise customers to maintain their valuation, and Google and Facebook are calling them out on it. Meanwhile, text is entirely inadequate for manipulating visual things effectively.

AI will supercharge artists that embrace it. Text-to-art is not good enough and real artists will be working with layers, node editors, and in 3D/video modalities.

[ilaksh]

There have always been downturns in the velocity of increase in capability of technology like a series of s-curves, but at a zoomed out level it's still an exponential that continues as we constantly innovate.

The trajectory we are on is for AI to be able to do most intellectual jobs in less than ten years and most physical jobs in less than 20. That is speculation but it is based on many decades of increasing performance and capabilities.

Text does have limitations but AI tools and models are not limited to text to image and new models and systems will be created.

I agree that AI will help artists in the short term. But we should anticipate that humans will eventually just be a bottleneck in the creative process.