| > What resources would you point your friends to who both want to learn about generative AI and assuage their fears that AI will make artists obsolete? It seems like your post is mostly based on assumptions about the poster, and a misreading(?) of this one word. There’s no hubris in wanting to assuage people’s fears that their skills might become obsolete. > The important part of art is the practice and the transformation that occurs in the creator. They claim to be engaging (talking to friends) to the extent that they can be without already being a working artist. Maybe they are lying, but all we have is a post on the Internet, so if we assume the author of the post is a liar, we don’t have much to go by. > You will never understand this unless you engage. Trying to circumvent it again and again will only result in circumambulating the point and will miss it every time. No matter how shiny the artifact that results. Do you actually work in art? I don’t. But what do you mean by engage? I’ve taken some art classes. It was fun. But this was a cultivated experience, I was paying the instructor to have fun and explore ideas. On the other hand, you can poke around online and find people who will complain about the day-to-day bullshit of their art jobs. I worry that, almost by definition, the easy paths to engagement are almost by-definition not going to give a good view of what the day-to-day bullshit experience looks like. People romanticize engineering and programming as well. The beauty of getting a tangible solution, sprung from your mind, that impacts the world. At the end of the day, a lot of houses and dinners were bought by the need to throw together boring assed corporate inventory management systems. Most work is the sort of stuff that nobody wants to do, after all. That’s why they pay you for it, rather than going the other way. |