[akritrime]

Imagine if writers complained that stuff they wrote were being used in literature classes that teaches people how to read and write because how sentences they once toiled over for hours would now be used in mundane letters.

AI can't take away an artists creativity, just like how photography didn't kill painting. Yes, it closes up certain avenues on how artists make money but it will most probably make up for that by making them more productive.

[Draiken]

Comparing teaching other humans to "teaching" a model is absurd.

AI can't take their creativity but it will take their means of survival so a few companies can profit instead. Yeah, great trade-off.

[Lerc]

>Comparing teaching other humans to "teaching" a model is absurd.

Bold conclusion, but why is it absurd?

New ways of making thinks has always had an impact on the old ways of making things. Are you proposing we should seek no new ways of making things? I have been described as a creative person by some. The notion of restricting what people can make and how they can make them does not gel with my idea of creativity.

I am sympathetic to those who might have their source of income affected. That is not a problem with the current change, it has been a problem with all change throughout history. If the welfare of people is really your concern then your issue is not with the change but how society supports people effected by that change.

[Draiken]

> Bold conclusion, but why is it absurd?

It doesn't learn anything, it simply regurgitates words based on probability. How we can compare a human learning from other humans to a machine mathematically accessing a zip file with human knowledge is beyond me. It's simply not even in the same ballpark.

> New ways of making thinks has always had an impact on the old ways of making things. Are you proposing we should seek no new ways of making things?

Let's not pretend that any of this is about making things easier or better for everyone. This is to make money and any benefit is a mere side-effect.

[akritrime]

The point isn't about comparing teaching and training. The point is about how humans use tool to improve and advance. It is more about comparing AI to books as an aggregate of knowledge. Just like how humans uses recorded writing in the form of books to analyze and adapt better ways of communication, humans can also use AI to be productive in fields that was previous out of their reach.

[user____name]

> Yes, it closes up certain avenues on how artists make money but it will most probably make up for that by making them more productive.

How?

[akritrime]

In a few years as image generation consistency improves, any video game artist can go from just creating characters for some other game dev to creating full-on animated sprites directly. Instead of having to depend on someone else to code their ideas, they can directly create that game. And the inverse will also be true, game devs can use AI to create generic arts for their game and work faster, create games that depends more on tech than art. Both flavors of games will bring something unique and doesn't invalidate the work of the other as useless.

[snackbroken]

It's already happening in the movie industry. Things like painstakingly hand-tracking an actor's face onto a body double vs using deepfake face replacement. A single vfx artist can now do this work much more quickly, pushing down the cost to do it. This in turn opens up new opportunities for work which were previously not economically viable, like splicing in retakes or making mouth movements match the voiceover dialogue.