No, this is not a Black Mirror episode.

  • effingjoe@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Maybe I’m overlooking something, but isn’t the actual change that doing these things will no longer be a viable way to earn a living?

      • effingjoe@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        but isn’t the artistic field already a lottery when it comes to making a living doing it? Maybe I have the wrong impression, but I feel like if “I very likely won’t be able to make a living doing this” actually discouraged new art from getting created, it already would be doing that.

        • Zeppo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Only if you’re looking at the very top of the profession, like people who hit it big as stars. There are a lot of other levels of employment and success short of Banksy or Beeple level.

          • Ferk@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            My hope is that deep-faking tech might actually help lower levels of the profession, even if it’s at the expense of those at the top who get huge amounts of money because of how famous their face is.

            Imho, Studios don’t even need to copy a famous actor’s face… just create a face of a person who doesn’t exist and make it into a new famous character by stamping it into a good (even if not top famous) actor.

            • Zeppo@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s true, it’s entirely uneccessary for people like Tom cruise to exist.

              So far it looks like that’s not their plan, though, with the offer to digitize extras for a one-time payment of $200. So they’ll just entirely replace extras forever with AI for what they’d normally make for 2-3 days of shooting.

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No. Before you could actually live (albeit barely) on being a designer or an illustrator, small gig actor or author for articles, musician for jingles, etc… Even when you weren’t the best and famous already. Artists are already seeing this slipping away and with further advances in AI you really do need to be one of the already famous people to do these types of art as a viable job.

    • Zeppo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s the problem - it take a lot of practice and experience to get really good at graphic design or illustration. When people are paying you to do it, you can afford to do it all day. If not, you need to spend the majority of your time doing something else, so it takes longer to advance in skill. I see this in my own field with hobbyists/people who do art on the side vs people who do it full time.

    • flipht@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It will mean that not only do you need to compete with your peers, you’ll need to compete forever with all the best talent that has ever worked.

      And those talents, at a certain point, will cost less. They’ll be able to do more for less money because they’ll be on to other things or dead, and thus are handling their living (or not) expenses differently. While you’ll still need an apartment near the studios and food to survive.

      There’s no real up side for 99.99% of people. The only ones who will make any real money from these changes are the executives and producers.

    • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most artists can’t earn their entire livelihood by their craft alone. Even those considered good, in most cases, need a main job.

      But even the little money you make from your art can at least pay for art supplies (which are very expensive). Learning to be a good in your craft costs an enormous amount of patience, time and money as well. With no money at all to be made out of it, no commissions, and your work immediately flowing into the AI pipeline, new artists will be further discouraged from even trying to hone that craft.

      • effingjoe@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You may very well be right on the money here, but I find it at least plausible that a market for “human-made” art becomes a thing if computer-made art becomes a thing.

        • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          It will only be rich people who can afford to do that, then. It won’t be a job anymore and even less likely to be a profitable endeavour for the many who can’t just pour all their time and money into a hobby just to become that good at it one day.

          • effingjoe@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s not necessarily true. Certainly plausible, but just as plausible as it working out like “cage free” eggs, where a perceived value pushes the market into a direction that it wouldn’t go for purely financial reasons.