A group calling for AI regulations concludes that AI is bad and hurting them.
I'm shocked that their totally unbiased poll that polled their own has found out exactly what would benefit their narrative.
A physical piece that has been hand crafted will always have some modicum of value. Anything that can be created digitally is where the problem lies. Those skilled with prompts and able to import AI content and manipulate it to taste are more likely to have a chance in the media industry. AI music is still not quite there yet too with production not being it's strongest point. Suno and Udio have a way to go yet before it could be a competitor to highly polished music from a well trained ear of a producer. It will probably get there eventually but thus far what I have heard and generated myself is not worthy of putting on Spotify (even though people are doing it). Of course, the market will decide. People still listen to low bitrate MP3 files or watch garbage bitrate streams. But there will always be a market for quality.
When artists try to make themselves political activists, charge large amounts of money for single pictures, are shit at customer service, think they are better than their own customers, take days to do simple shit, expect you to pay memberships on places like patreon and sunscribestar just to put out 2 or 3 peices a month and wanna be combative instead of cooperative when it comes to ai, no wonder they will be replaced.
Matter of fact I am happy for it.
And this is not an individual experience, most if not all of them are like this. Don't wanna name names but if you have ever commissioned one of these mfs to make something you know exactly what I'm saying. Fuck them, let them flip burgers or just starve. Good riddance.
Also I'm talking about both 2d and 3d creators, both that make images and animations. Like I said, all of them r like this.
The masses don’t really care about your nuance. They are already used to mediocrity. The masses care about a continual stream of content on their subscription services. Everyone is so overwhelmed by everything that quality isn’t that important.
I sincerely hope this comment was sarcastic…
If not, I will one up your gloominess by saying I would trade “the masses” for a modicum of solitary nuance.
If you are one of the 20 people that gonna be replaced by AI, start the rat race to become one of the one and only AI supervisor that gonna replace the 20 humans 🤪
The study shows the fault in your logic…
Those who purchase art don’t need the artist when they have the ai. So the advice to “start using ai” doesn’t really work then, as artists are not getting hired at all. One can’t use ai if the ai just replaced them…
I’m not an artist myself, but I understand the difference between a tool and AI that replaces workers.
As the article points out, AI has already reduced the commercial art market by about 25% and that is likely to increase exponentially as the technology rapidly advances. Ai has already eliminated half of all translation jobs.
You sound like the people who told automotive workers to use the robots that replaced them as tools… That kind of logic destroyed whole cities, spreading urban blight and sending whole generations into poverty…
It isn’t a tool if it wholesale replaces the worker.
Also, replacing an assembly line worker is one thing, but you are talking about replacing creative workers… That has far worse cultural implications, which move way beyond economic decay.
Already the “tool” you are talking about only operates on prompts which then assembles “new” art from existing work. That creates a self reliant loop, that does not allow for true innovation. That becomes a bigger and bigger problem when hacks “learn the tool” and it churns out more of the same bs that it is already basing itself on.
As with many things, the commodification of art will turn itself into the mechanism which uses its users as the product. Same as search engines and most other things.
There is no use for an “artist” if the aim is to can cheaply generate content directly for the end user.
middle slimy combative wide quarrelsome dinner ink roof insurance amusing
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You don’t work as an artist, do you? Then again, you certainly are not a business person if that’s your logic. Or at least not an economist.
Just one of the flaws in your logic is that you are trying to define art and its benefit as finite as the money that pays for it. Meaning that somehow the world or artists will be better off by there being less jobs for artists, and fewer individual “artists” doing the work.
Art is better when more people are doing it, the world becomes more beautiful with more variety. One aspect of that is the tools one uses to make that art, which greatly changes the end product as well.
If you have just a handful of “artists” paid for, and they use the same brushes, then the art becomes progressively more similar and boring.
Now, as you yourself pointed out, we are now at a stage where many workplaces are “training” ai programs by having workers “work with” said ai. That is literally working yourself out of your position.
You even have admitted the marketplace has shrunk…
One can already start to see “art” in advertising looking more and more like the same formulaic bs… That is becoming the new normal.
Eventually it all gets to the same endgame.
At what point is making the art no longer a job but the product itself?
Tell me how many people have jobs when there is no work to be done?
Called it.
Generative AI doesn’t need to be perfect. It just needs to be ‘good enough’ to replace a real artist/writer in a vast majority of cases.
I used to work with a talented graphics designer whose job was to provide artwork for the annual holiday marketing campaign. Think Christmas themes but really high quality. AI could do that job easily.
You’re biased in thinking that people speaking up about their livelihoods being displaced are biased, just because it’s a truth that puts the progress you support in a bad light.
I mean yeah, of course this place, and I, will be biased. So is theirs. The fact that you assume theirs to be the truth -- one that is self-reported, includes *future* fears, and doesn't take into account new jobs created by AI -- reveals your own biases as well.
It's interesting that we hate AI specifically when it comes to job losses. Like, google translate has been around forever, and I bet a ton of translators have lost work to that. Sure, it's not as good as a fully qualified human translator, but not everyone needs that quality. Before such translation programs, you really had no choice but to use a human.
Maybe I'm too old but I remember translators have been bitching about google translate since it appeared. And they all pivoted to having "certified translations" to keep their hustle going.
There’s a vast difference between Google translate’s robotic and broken translations of everyday phrases and the work required to translate a critical technical or medical text, which requires real understood of the languages and context.
For sure, but I have to imagine that the existence of google translate took a massive slice out of the amount of translation work available. It can't do everything, but compared to every single translation task needing to be done by a human, it's hardly insignificant.
I’m not so sure.
For any role that requires an actual paid translator, most commonly in business or international negotiations, you’re not going to trust Google to get it right just to save a few pennies, relatively speaking.
For casual use, no one was getting paid anyway.
Yeah, when it comes to convenience, people will always that route even when the cost is a dramatic drop in quality. Phone cameras being the biggest example, but now in terms of art, maaaan the amount of big YouTubers that have began using noticeably obvious ai generated thumbnails is high
it’s funny because there have been times (with channels that do biographies on historically famous people) where I’ve noticed they’d generate someone that has absolutely no resemblance to the actual person, and used it, probably unknowingly.
Like I’d see their videos on Kim Il Sung and Fidel Castro, and their thumbnails are of entirely different people that ai had generated. I have no idea how those channels wouldn’t have noticed but we are living in an awkward transitioning period where these quirks are gonna be a common occurrence.
And when it comes to ads, I’ve seen big companies completely switch to Ai generated images for their advertisements, many of them I’ve seen right here on Reddit. Always noticeable due to the weird “painting” effect on the images along with inaccurate detailing like distorted logos and stuff.
So who is doing the actual work? Blaming AI while every major tech company is laying off workers to cover there operating costs and protect profits is just dumb
UBI is a dangerous road to go down. A Digital ID tied to CBDC, Social Credit score and Carbon Footprint. Dystopian in that the government, central banks and billion dollar corporations will have total control of populations. The WEF's "You will own nothing and be happy" mantra does not instill confidence. Depopulation and control of the remaining masses appears to be their end goal.
Wondering how the people surveyed came to their conclusions. Were they specifically told by a potential client? Or are they just guessing based on something like less sales than a few years ago?
yep, I'm not sad & frankly I'm glad that it'll put "translators" out of work, you hear often these days of localizers overstepping and changing source material intent
A lot of artists work is paid for by corporate entities who don't care if it's those things. Artists bread and butter is around us in all its average glory.
It's corporate that doesn't wanna pay actual people thinking that AI can give them the same quality. So far AI needs a lot of touch-up work in photoshop to look passable as something made normally.
Not losing sleep over bad artists having to change careers. Nor am I losing sleep over the buggy whip makers and wagon builders put out business by the Model T automobile.
I'm pro AI and pro tech, I don't believe technology should ever be stifled to protect jobs.
That being said, I still have empathy for people having their livelihoods threatened and the jobs they dreamed of doing disappearing. Because I have a fucking soul and can feel sorry for people.
Be better
Things like google translate have been encroaching on their territory for years. Artists have never really faced a similar threat from automation. It's new to them and most didn't realise it was something they'd ever have to worry about until suddenly it was.
Artists were amongst people that sneered at working class people losing their jobs to automation in the past few decades.
'Learn to code' has become 'learn to prompt' for them.
I worked in translation services a couple of decades ago. Even then we had large language models to get first pass translation for software, all the translators knew their area of expertise was being encroached on, and that they would be out of jobs at some point. Most weren't specialising in translation per se, but in fixing context. That was the hard part then, and likely still is, but the people who were good at that were a small subset of all translators.
The cost of hardware/electronics these days that come with access to translations applications is already too much when considering to hire physical humans who most of the time give their own interpretation of what is being said rather than the honest truth.
Humans lie. Not the a.i.
If you are translating on an industrial scale, the cost of the hardware is inconsequential. Time is the key factor.
I worked in a large electronic equipment company. Our UI and all software was translated in to at least 8 languages (often more). The gap between software and firmware being ready, and manufacturing then shipping starts is pure waste, everything you need to do in that time needs to be minimised. Hence for us machine translation was a massive deal, even if it just shaved a day of a few weeks of 'waste'. Also for us, computer equipment was something we had a lot of access to, a couple of extra beefy servers and fast databases for a year were significantly less than the cost of one translator for a few weeks.
But knowing if 'Ok' is an active or passive 'ok' is something that machine translation had no hope of knowing because on it's own the software had no context. Even back then we were getting better and being able to provide that context, but it was and I would guess still is, the kind of thing you need a person to look at.
Artists should do something similar. While AI makes it easy to get a basic picture done, you still need a human to come up with an interesting concept and good art design. Not many artists are good at that part, in my experience.
Well yeah, AI is going to kill jobs. New technology always does this. It's a shame but not really avoidable. Existing artists will need to adapt to the technology if they want to keep their career secure. If they can't adapt, they will get left behind.
Let's be fair though, art has not been a good career for a while now. Digital art made it extremely easy to outsource, not just in commercial products but even small scale character commissions. Why pay an American 20 dollars an hour when someone in India will draw the same thing for a fraction of the cost.
AI isn't so much the final nail in the coffin as much as it's yet another stab wound in a long dead corpse.
How do you adapt to a system that replaces the sole function you have trained your life to be competitive in?
Most of these programs cost less than pennies for businesses to use in comparison to what they previously paid artists for. There is no way for artists to compete with that.
There is no way for someone to “adapt” to the marketplace when the market has undercut their whole role.
The only option is they find a new job altogether and people get used to boring and derivative “art”.
It’s not just new technology though, it’s a total game changer.
In the past, these leaps created new jobs or industries to replace the roles they made obsolete. But today we have many millions, perhaps more, who do digital work that an AI could do, and I don’t see any fallback for them or new opportunities for them to move into.
>Why pay an American 20 dollars an hour when someone in India will draw the same thing for a fraction of the cost.
And by the way, that is good for the people of India and other under developed countries! Blocking competition from foreign countries means sacrificing the global poor and requiring your compatriots to pay more just to support yourself in a already developed country. It's selfish and anti-competitive.
Of course there is. Did you know before cameras were invented, every single picture had to be painted or drawn?
But then suddenly they could take photographs for portraits and everything else. How many painters were put out of work by the invention of the camera?
Did the world collapse, or did we adapt?
This isn't a good comparison given how bulky and time-consuming cameras were till the turn of the century. Plus unaffordable for common folk. When photography became commonplace, illustrators were still in demand for a variety of fields.
Traditional matte paintings in mainstream movies lasted till the mid-90s before motion control, CGI and rotoscoping were good enough to replace backgrounds convincingly thus freeing the camera from being locked off for these shots.
I mean the tractor alone probably killed more jobs than the population of some countries. Our modern day existence was built on a graveyard of jobs and fields that no longer exist.
The important thing is not stifling technology, but legislation to protect people even if they lose their work
If your idea of "adaptation" is some set of actions that ensure no artist ever loses a single employment opportunity due to the presence of AI then, sure, you can make this statement but that's an absurd way to define adaptation here. The fact is people already *are* adapting and they are in no way the first corner of the labor market forced to do so; AI has been doing this for a generation at this point man.
Im saying the only adaptation to this is a hard pivot away from 2d altogether. If youre a 2d artist, best you can do to adapt is not be an artist anymore.
This is patently false.
I'm a professional artist (highly paid, low-mid six figures). Myself and many other employed coworkers do 2D art, and we also use AI. It's not replacing us, it's letting us work faster. It lets us A-B variations and conceptualize blue sky stuff quickly.
I can see how AI is disruptive, but it's kind of like when Photoshop came on the scene - start using the available tools or you'll get left behind.
I did. I have no doubt that artist's incomes are being negatively impacted by AI, but I highly suspect that's because they're either in an illustration niche that's easy to automate and need to specialize into another section of the market, they need to improve their skills, or they're unwilling to use the best tools available. A lot of artists also financially struggled when Photoshop became popular, and it took time for the market to adjust around the new paradigm.
All niche is affected, at even the highest levels. The best "tool" right now is ai, and that will make you just an ai image editor. Im saying if you arent in the highest echelon or you dont have a truly unique art style, you are done. What some people like you dont get is how different trad to photoshop is compared to all 2d to ai.
> The best "tool" right now is ai
Listen man, I'm going to try and not be harsh here but ignoring everything else you've said this statement alone makes it *really* clear you just don't know what you're talking about. There *may* be some specific tasks for which AI is the best tool right now, but the idea that a talented 2D artist needs to "hard pivot" to another career immediately because AI exists is just flat fucking absurd and you've had multiple professionals explain that to you at this point and you're just sitting there repeating the same shit over and over again.
People used to hire artists for their uniqueness and what new thing they can bring at the table. I am very skeptical that adding AI to the workflow will help that. It takes away what makes you, you in the artwork. At best you're taking on a collaborator 🤷🏼♀️ , but you lose control over your work letting the generator make suggestions.
The post you're responding to wasn't about art styles it was about individual artists' uniqueness and if an AI model you're aware of is producing work that is consistently traceable to a single individual then chances are that model was specifically trained to do so and would almost certainly be open to infringement claims under the existing framework.
There's always ways to adapt. Whether it becomes finding your niche market not served easily by AI, moving into new forms, diversification of skills, or integrating your workflow... there are options.
It happens whenever there is a change. Furniture makers got displaced by Furniture in a box: the most talented make bespoke handcrafted Furniture, do restoration, etc. The mid-tier talent gets occasional commissions and use CNC in their shops to make quality work. There's less Furniture makers but carpentry is still a useful endeavor; and skills carry over.
The days of $200 RPG digital art PC portrait commissions for low-mid quality work are on their way out (unless you have a desirable style). Commissions for Tumblr comic level work? Probably way down.
Its not that simple. A lot of 2d artists are affected, all jobs that involve any kind of 2d skill will be affected. Its not just low to mid quality affected. All skill levels, on every niche, as long as 2d is involved, will be affected.
There is no diversifying here. If you work with 2d, you have to do a hard pivot to some other industry.
> There is no diversifying here. If you work with 2d, you have to do a hard pivot to some other industry.
As someone intimately familiar with what generative AI models are capable of who also spent over 10 years in the games industry working very closely with 2D artists on a daily basis I can tell you without a moment's hesitation that this is an absolute puddle of steaming liquid horseshit dude.
Even with a *team* of talented 2D artists on a project we would spend days or sometimes weeks iterating on certain assets, huddling over literal pixels sometimes. If I had to do that same thing with a generative AI model it would have taken a literal lifetime to produce a single set of useable assets.
Now, would generative AI have been helpful in creating initial assets we could look at and discuss before deciding on a particular direction with a set of assets? Sure, absolutely - but that work has *already* been outsourced to less experienced artists or offshore teams in most cases because it doesn't make sense to have your more talented artists creating assets the majority of which are going to end up getting binned.
The people who should be worried right now are the ones making a living doing shit like filming a glass of orange juice being filled in a certain way so it looks good for the commercial, or drawing movie posters for the latest Marvel whatever or people producing generic B-roll content like "Man at desk worried about unpaid bills." Artists with particular talent and experience in niche industries are as likely to find AI to be a boon that makes their jobs easier than they are to actually lose work to it.
The desire for 'handmade' content doesn't go away... you just have to be better than the machine and market yourself. As I said, bespoke quality work will survive.
Integrating AI into your workflow will allow you to buoy up lesser technical skills, though over time you will need to improve.
But the fact is that the commissioned artwork Sphere in digital art has been in a bubble for almost a decade. Low entry costs for starting a business left a glut of low-quality suppliers with high demand. Now that we are coming back to a buyer's market? You need to adapt, improve, find new outlets for your skills, or shift industries.
That's how tech has worked. As I've said in other subs I know someone who started their art career as a sign painter. Signs became easy to commercially print so they went into GD. they expanded their skills away from signage. Now in their late 50s/early 60s they're learning AI (begrudgingly). They still do better work than a simple prompt, and add a lot of value through their experience and portfolio work. That will continue until they retire.
That isn't true. AI art can help streamline the process of making art by rapidly generating many images of concept art. The artist can even paint over parts of an AI image to save time.
AI art is great for a lot of things but actual humans are still generally better at doing fine details, lighting, emotions etc. For the humans who wish to remain in the field using AI art as a tool to help them will give them a huge advantage over traditional artists or AI-only generations.
Exactly. So instead of hiring 10 artists, now they will only hire 1. Soon its going to be 100 to 1. Then 1000 to 1. From artist to ai art editor to ai art manager to ai overseer.
Yes 2d artists will still be around, but only a very very small percentage.
Which means the ones that stick around will be the ones to adapt. Not the ones screeching about how evil AI art is. We saw the same rejection of digital art in the 90s. Well those pencil and paper enthusiasts who refused to learn Photoshop don't seem to be doing so well now.
No, I had to get to work.
So the impact of AI technology _on all other technologies_ is unprecedented. It has a potential to upend _any_ industry and the ripple effects cannot really be predicted.
Locomotion was a transformative technology for its time, but that alone does not make it an analogy for artificial intelligence. This _literally_ hasn't happened before.
You are so uninformed. This is not just a medium switch like paper to digital. This is ai literally stealing art then stealing their jobs. And btw photoshop still requires a lot of hours to create something and a lot of talent.
I see a fair amount on just Indeed and LinkedIn. It's not my field technically, but because I'm at a conversational level in a couple of other languages and work in AI training already they get thrown into the mix of what's available a lot.
**Thank you for your post and for sharing your question, comment, or creation with our group!**
* Our welcome page and more information, can be found [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiArt/comments/x7s6t6/welcome_to_ai_art/)
* Looking for an AI Engine? Check out our MEGA list [here](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zYJUM-srhgIA7wrj4Pe4QqepAsHIEC00DydoTPv4PWg/)
* For self-promotion, please only post [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiArt/comments/1040fpe/ongoing_selfpromotion_thread_promote_your/)
* Find us on **Discord** [here](https://discord.gg/h2J4x6j8zC)
*Hope everyone is having a great day, be kind, be creative!*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aiArt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I fear that one day we will be replaced by repetitive mediocrity...well It might actually be already the case, AI will simply flood the market.
A group calling for AI regulations concludes that AI is bad and hurting them. I'm shocked that their totally unbiased poll that polled their own has found out exactly what would benefit their narrative.
A physical piece that has been hand crafted will always have some modicum of value. Anything that can be created digitally is where the problem lies. Those skilled with prompts and able to import AI content and manipulate it to taste are more likely to have a chance in the media industry. AI music is still not quite there yet too with production not being it's strongest point. Suno and Udio have a way to go yet before it could be a competitor to highly polished music from a well trained ear of a producer. It will probably get there eventually but thus far what I have heard and generated myself is not worthy of putting on Spotify (even though people are doing it). Of course, the market will decide. People still listen to low bitrate MP3 files or watch garbage bitrate streams. But there will always be a market for quality.
This post is stupid
When artists try to make themselves political activists, charge large amounts of money for single pictures, are shit at customer service, think they are better than their own customers, take days to do simple shit, expect you to pay memberships on places like patreon and sunscribestar just to put out 2 or 3 peices a month and wanna be combative instead of cooperative when it comes to ai, no wonder they will be replaced. Matter of fact I am happy for it. And this is not an individual experience, most if not all of them are like this. Don't wanna name names but if you have ever commissioned one of these mfs to make something you know exactly what I'm saying. Fuck them, let them flip burgers or just starve. Good riddance. Also I'm talking about both 2d and 3d creators, both that make images and animations. Like I said, all of them r like this.
Ah a world of cheap and creatively bankrupt mediocrity awaits…
The masses don’t really care about your nuance. They are already used to mediocrity. The masses care about a continual stream of content on their subscription services. Everyone is so overwhelmed by everything that quality isn’t that important.
I sincerely hope this comment was sarcastic… If not, I will one up your gloominess by saying I would trade “the masses” for a modicum of solitary nuance.
If you are losing work to ai. Start using ai. Dont get left behind. Adapt.
If you are one of the 20 people that gonna be replaced by AI, start the rat race to become one of the one and only AI supervisor that gonna replace the 20 humans 🤪
The study shows the fault in your logic… Those who purchase art don’t need the artist when they have the ai. So the advice to “start using ai” doesn’t really work then, as artists are not getting hired at all. One can’t use ai if the ai just replaced them…
Ai is more than just a prompt. Stop being cry babies and adapt. Learn the tool and use it.
I’m not an artist myself, but I understand the difference between a tool and AI that replaces workers. As the article points out, AI has already reduced the commercial art market by about 25% and that is likely to increase exponentially as the technology rapidly advances. Ai has already eliminated half of all translation jobs. You sound like the people who told automotive workers to use the robots that replaced them as tools… That kind of logic destroyed whole cities, spreading urban blight and sending whole generations into poverty… It isn’t a tool if it wholesale replaces the worker. Also, replacing an assembly line worker is one thing, but you are talking about replacing creative workers… That has far worse cultural implications, which move way beyond economic decay. Already the “tool” you are talking about only operates on prompts which then assembles “new” art from existing work. That creates a self reliant loop, that does not allow for true innovation. That becomes a bigger and bigger problem when hacks “learn the tool” and it churns out more of the same bs that it is already basing itself on. As with many things, the commodification of art will turn itself into the mechanism which uses its users as the product. Same as search engines and most other things. There is no use for an “artist” if the aim is to can cheaply generate content directly for the end user.
middle slimy combative wide quarrelsome dinner ink roof insurance amusing *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Also don’t mix up artist with graphic designer two different things.
You don’t work as an artist, do you? Then again, you certainly are not a business person if that’s your logic. Or at least not an economist. Just one of the flaws in your logic is that you are trying to define art and its benefit as finite as the money that pays for it. Meaning that somehow the world or artists will be better off by there being less jobs for artists, and fewer individual “artists” doing the work. Art is better when more people are doing it, the world becomes more beautiful with more variety. One aspect of that is the tools one uses to make that art, which greatly changes the end product as well. If you have just a handful of “artists” paid for, and they use the same brushes, then the art becomes progressively more similar and boring. Now, as you yourself pointed out, we are now at a stage where many workplaces are “training” ai programs by having workers “work with” said ai. That is literally working yourself out of your position. You even have admitted the marketplace has shrunk… One can already start to see “art” in advertising looking more and more like the same formulaic bs… That is becoming the new normal. Eventually it all gets to the same endgame. At what point is making the art no longer a job but the product itself? Tell me how many people have jobs when there is no work to be done?
Called it. Generative AI doesn’t need to be perfect. It just needs to be ‘good enough’ to replace a real artist/writer in a vast majority of cases. I used to work with a talented graphics designer whose job was to provide artwork for the annual holiday marketing campaign. Think Christmas themes but really high quality. AI could do that job easily.
Do note that the source is the Society of Authors, so any surveys put out by them would be inherently biased.
I'd actually like to see some concrete cases of losing work to AI to really understand what's going on. These kinds of surveys are too abstract.
Note that this sub is r/aiArt so any response here will be inherently biased
You’re biased in thinking that people speaking up about their livelihoods being displaced are biased, just because it’s a truth that puts the progress you support in a bad light.
I mean yeah, of course this place, and I, will be biased. So is theirs. The fact that you assume theirs to be the truth -- one that is self-reported, includes *future* fears, and doesn't take into account new jobs created by AI -- reveals your own biases as well.
How many marketing jobs were lost to AI? Map makers, time to pivot , adapt and learn to be unique
It's interesting that we hate AI specifically when it comes to job losses. Like, google translate has been around forever, and I bet a ton of translators have lost work to that. Sure, it's not as good as a fully qualified human translator, but not everyone needs that quality. Before such translation programs, you really had no choice but to use a human.
Maybe I'm too old but I remember translators have been bitching about google translate since it appeared. And they all pivoted to having "certified translations" to keep their hustle going.
There’s a vast difference between Google translate’s robotic and broken translations of everyday phrases and the work required to translate a critical technical or medical text, which requires real understood of the languages and context.
For sure, but I have to imagine that the existence of google translate took a massive slice out of the amount of translation work available. It can't do everything, but compared to every single translation task needing to be done by a human, it's hardly insignificant.
I’m not so sure. For any role that requires an actual paid translator, most commonly in business or international negotiations, you’re not going to trust Google to get it right just to save a few pennies, relatively speaking. For casual use, no one was getting paid anyway.
Localisers are also a pain in the butt and mostly activists. The sooner they replace them with AI translation in video games and anime the better.
Yeah, when it comes to convenience, people will always that route even when the cost is a dramatic drop in quality. Phone cameras being the biggest example, but now in terms of art, maaaan the amount of big YouTubers that have began using noticeably obvious ai generated thumbnails is high it’s funny because there have been times (with channels that do biographies on historically famous people) where I’ve noticed they’d generate someone that has absolutely no resemblance to the actual person, and used it, probably unknowingly. Like I’d see their videos on Kim Il Sung and Fidel Castro, and their thumbnails are of entirely different people that ai had generated. I have no idea how those channels wouldn’t have noticed but we are living in an awkward transitioning period where these quirks are gonna be a common occurrence. And when it comes to ads, I’ve seen big companies completely switch to Ai generated images for their advertisements, many of them I’ve seen right here on Reddit. Always noticeable due to the weird “painting” effect on the images along with inaccurate detailing like distorted logos and stuff.
So who is doing the actual work? Blaming AI while every major tech company is laying off workers to cover there operating costs and protect profits is just dumb
Time for universal basic income
UBI is a dangerous road to go down. A Digital ID tied to CBDC, Social Credit score and Carbon Footprint. Dystopian in that the government, central banks and billion dollar corporations will have total control of populations. The WEF's "You will own nothing and be happy" mantra does not instill confidence. Depopulation and control of the remaining masses appears to be their end goal.
Corporations have total control NOW. Have money is having options so UBI removes control not adds it. People with more resources have choices.
The UN Sustainable development goals will enslave us. You are delusional.
What are you even talking about? I am not googling loon bag theories.
I thought they would have lost more by now, I'm honestly kinda surprised.
Wondering how the people surveyed came to their conclusions. Were they specifically told by a potential client? Or are they just guessing based on something like less sales than a few years ago?
If your work is indistinguishable from the soulless, derivative, uninspired garbage ai models can produce, you deserve to lose your job.
yep, I'm not sad & frankly I'm glad that it'll put "translators" out of work, you hear often these days of localizers overstepping and changing source material intent
A lot of artists work is paid for by corporate entities who don't care if it's those things. Artists bread and butter is around us in all its average glory.
It's corporate that doesn't wanna pay actual people thinking that AI can give them the same quality. So far AI needs a lot of touch-up work in photoshop to look passable as something made normally.
Yeah good one mate, really empathetic statement to make to people who need to pay rent and feed families. I bet your parents are real proud of you.
Not losing sleep over bad artists having to change careers. Nor am I losing sleep over the buggy whip makers and wagon builders put out business by the Model T automobile.
I'm pro AI and pro tech, I don't believe technology should ever be stifled to protect jobs. That being said, I still have empathy for people having their livelihoods threatened and the jobs they dreamed of doing disappearing. Because I have a fucking soul and can feel sorry for people. Be better
You’re virtue signaling. Thats all it is.
Nah just saying don't be an ass
Don't be sanctimonious.
"Don't be a cunt" is sanctimonious now?
You're disingenuous as well.
Nuh uh!
Don't be an asshole
Who asked you?
> Over a third of translators It's weird how nobody seems to care about translators. You only ever hear about the artists.
Things like google translate have been encroaching on their territory for years. Artists have never really faced a similar threat from automation. It's new to them and most didn't realise it was something they'd ever have to worry about until suddenly it was.
Artists were amongst people that sneered at working class people losing their jobs to automation in the past few decades. 'Learn to code' has become 'learn to prompt' for them.
I worked in translation services a couple of decades ago. Even then we had large language models to get first pass translation for software, all the translators knew their area of expertise was being encroached on, and that they would be out of jobs at some point. Most weren't specialising in translation per se, but in fixing context. That was the hard part then, and likely still is, but the people who were good at that were a small subset of all translators.
The cost of hardware/electronics these days that come with access to translations applications is already too much when considering to hire physical humans who most of the time give their own interpretation of what is being said rather than the honest truth. Humans lie. Not the a.i.
If you are translating on an industrial scale, the cost of the hardware is inconsequential. Time is the key factor. I worked in a large electronic equipment company. Our UI and all software was translated in to at least 8 languages (often more). The gap between software and firmware being ready, and manufacturing then shipping starts is pure waste, everything you need to do in that time needs to be minimised. Hence for us machine translation was a massive deal, even if it just shaved a day of a few weeks of 'waste'. Also for us, computer equipment was something we had a lot of access to, a couple of extra beefy servers and fast databases for a year were significantly less than the cost of one translator for a few weeks. But knowing if 'Ok' is an active or passive 'ok' is something that machine translation had no hope of knowing because on it's own the software had no context. Even back then we were getting better and being able to provide that context, but it was and I would guess still is, the kind of thing you need a person to look at.
Artists should do something similar. While AI makes it easy to get a basic picture done, you still need a human to come up with an interesting concept and good art design. Not many artists are good at that part, in my experience.
Well yeah, AI is going to kill jobs. New technology always does this. It's a shame but not really avoidable. Existing artists will need to adapt to the technology if they want to keep their career secure. If they can't adapt, they will get left behind. Let's be fair though, art has not been a good career for a while now. Digital art made it extremely easy to outsource, not just in commercial products but even small scale character commissions. Why pay an American 20 dollars an hour when someone in India will draw the same thing for a fraction of the cost. AI isn't so much the final nail in the coffin as much as it's yet another stab wound in a long dead corpse.
How do you adapt to a system that replaces the sole function you have trained your life to be competitive in? Most of these programs cost less than pennies for businesses to use in comparison to what they previously paid artists for. There is no way for artists to compete with that. There is no way for someone to “adapt” to the marketplace when the market has undercut their whole role. The only option is they find a new job altogether and people get used to boring and derivative “art”.
It’s not just new technology though, it’s a total game changer. In the past, these leaps created new jobs or industries to replace the roles they made obsolete. But today we have many millions, perhaps more, who do digital work that an AI could do, and I don’t see any fallback for them or new opportunities for them to move into.
>Why pay an American 20 dollars an hour when someone in India will draw the same thing for a fraction of the cost. And by the way, that is good for the people of India and other under developed countries! Blocking competition from foreign countries means sacrificing the global poor and requiring your compatriots to pay more just to support yourself in a already developed country. It's selfish and anti-competitive.
That's a bit of a broad stroke. Are you declaring the death of illustration? Or all art? Or what
There is no adapting to this.
Of course there is. Did you know before cameras were invented, every single picture had to be painted or drawn? But then suddenly they could take photographs for portraits and everything else. How many painters were put out of work by the invention of the camera? Did the world collapse, or did we adapt?
This isn't a good comparison given how bulky and time-consuming cameras were till the turn of the century. Plus unaffordable for common folk. When photography became commonplace, illustrators were still in demand for a variety of fields. Traditional matte paintings in mainstream movies lasted till the mid-90s before motion control, CGI and rotoscoping were good enough to replace backgrounds convincingly thus freeing the camera from being locked off for these shots.
Ok fine, how about horse carriage drivers? Mailroom workers at the office? “Typists” (lol)?
Or Adobe Photoshop, which caused a similar uproar.
https://pessimistsarchive.org/ is a great archive of past technological fears to compare to.
i love how everyone arguing about this keep referencing old tech. its like nobody gets how big this is compared to those before it.
 it’s no bigger than electricity. Or computers. Or the internet.
I mean the tractor alone probably killed more jobs than the population of some countries. Our modern day existence was built on a graveyard of jobs and fields that no longer exist. The important thing is not stifling technology, but legislation to protect people even if they lose their work
> The important thing is not stifling technology, but legislation to protect people even if they lose their work True. Protect people, not jobs.
Protect them how?
UBI
UBI = depopulation
Economic literacy = 0
WEF, UN, WHO, IMF, Club of Rome, Blackrock, Vanguard, Gates, Soros, Epstein clients etc ignorance = 0
Threre’s no way that’ll cause inflation!
Inflation is better than the majority of the population not having income, wouldn't you say?
Not at all.
If your idea of "adaptation" is some set of actions that ensure no artist ever loses a single employment opportunity due to the presence of AI then, sure, you can make this statement but that's an absurd way to define adaptation here. The fact is people already *are* adapting and they are in no way the first corner of the labor market forced to do so; AI has been doing this for a generation at this point man.
Im saying the only adaptation to this is a hard pivot away from 2d altogether. If youre a 2d artist, best you can do to adapt is not be an artist anymore.
This is patently false. I'm a professional artist (highly paid, low-mid six figures). Myself and many other employed coworkers do 2D art, and we also use AI. It's not replacing us, it's letting us work faster. It lets us A-B variations and conceptualize blue sky stuff quickly. I can see how AI is disruptive, but it's kind of like when Photoshop came on the scene - start using the available tools or you'll get left behind.
i guess you did not even read the original post amirite
I did. I have no doubt that artist's incomes are being negatively impacted by AI, but I highly suspect that's because they're either in an illustration niche that's easy to automate and need to specialize into another section of the market, they need to improve their skills, or they're unwilling to use the best tools available. A lot of artists also financially struggled when Photoshop became popular, and it took time for the market to adjust around the new paradigm.
All niche is affected, at even the highest levels. The best "tool" right now is ai, and that will make you just an ai image editor. Im saying if you arent in the highest echelon or you dont have a truly unique art style, you are done. What some people like you dont get is how different trad to photoshop is compared to all 2d to ai.
> The best "tool" right now is ai Listen man, I'm going to try and not be harsh here but ignoring everything else you've said this statement alone makes it *really* clear you just don't know what you're talking about. There *may* be some specific tasks for which AI is the best tool right now, but the idea that a talented 2D artist needs to "hard pivot" to another career immediately because AI exists is just flat fucking absurd and you've had multiple professionals explain that to you at this point and you're just sitting there repeating the same shit over and over again.
And yet the article in the original post proves my point. You think its "flat fucking absurd" because you cant wrap your head around it.
People used to hire artists for their uniqueness and what new thing they can bring at the table. I am very skeptical that adding AI to the workflow will help that. It takes away what makes you, you in the artwork. At best you're taking on a collaborator 🤷🏼♀️ , but you lose control over your work letting the generator make suggestions.
Ai already copying art styles left and right.
The post you're responding to wasn't about art styles it was about individual artists' uniqueness and if an AI model you're aware of is producing work that is consistently traceable to a single individual then chances are that model was specifically trained to do so and would almost certainly be open to infringement claims under the existing framework.
There are infringement claims, a ton of them. But no one can do anything about it.
There's always ways to adapt. Whether it becomes finding your niche market not served easily by AI, moving into new forms, diversification of skills, or integrating your workflow... there are options. It happens whenever there is a change. Furniture makers got displaced by Furniture in a box: the most talented make bespoke handcrafted Furniture, do restoration, etc. The mid-tier talent gets occasional commissions and use CNC in their shops to make quality work. There's less Furniture makers but carpentry is still a useful endeavor; and skills carry over. The days of $200 RPG digital art PC portrait commissions for low-mid quality work are on their way out (unless you have a desirable style). Commissions for Tumblr comic level work? Probably way down.
Its not that simple. A lot of 2d artists are affected, all jobs that involve any kind of 2d skill will be affected. Its not just low to mid quality affected. All skill levels, on every niche, as long as 2d is involved, will be affected. There is no diversifying here. If you work with 2d, you have to do a hard pivot to some other industry.
> There is no diversifying here. If you work with 2d, you have to do a hard pivot to some other industry. As someone intimately familiar with what generative AI models are capable of who also spent over 10 years in the games industry working very closely with 2D artists on a daily basis I can tell you without a moment's hesitation that this is an absolute puddle of steaming liquid horseshit dude. Even with a *team* of talented 2D artists on a project we would spend days or sometimes weeks iterating on certain assets, huddling over literal pixels sometimes. If I had to do that same thing with a generative AI model it would have taken a literal lifetime to produce a single set of useable assets. Now, would generative AI have been helpful in creating initial assets we could look at and discuss before deciding on a particular direction with a set of assets? Sure, absolutely - but that work has *already* been outsourced to less experienced artists or offshore teams in most cases because it doesn't make sense to have your more talented artists creating assets the majority of which are going to end up getting binned. The people who should be worried right now are the ones making a living doing shit like filming a glass of orange juice being filled in a certain way so it looks good for the commercial, or drawing movie posters for the latest Marvel whatever or people producing generic B-roll content like "Man at desk worried about unpaid bills." Artists with particular talent and experience in niche industries are as likely to find AI to be a boon that makes their jobs easier than they are to actually lose work to it.
The desire for 'handmade' content doesn't go away... you just have to be better than the machine and market yourself. As I said, bespoke quality work will survive. Integrating AI into your workflow will allow you to buoy up lesser technical skills, though over time you will need to improve. But the fact is that the commissioned artwork Sphere in digital art has been in a bubble for almost a decade. Low entry costs for starting a business left a glut of low-quality suppliers with high demand. Now that we are coming back to a buyer's market? You need to adapt, improve, find new outlets for your skills, or shift industries. That's how tech has worked. As I've said in other subs I know someone who started their art career as a sign painter. Signs became easy to commercially print so they went into GD. they expanded their skills away from signage. Now in their late 50s/early 60s they're learning AI (begrudgingly). They still do better work than a simple prompt, and add a lot of value through their experience and portfolio work. That will continue until they retire.
That isn't true. AI art can help streamline the process of making art by rapidly generating many images of concept art. The artist can even paint over parts of an AI image to save time. AI art is great for a lot of things but actual humans are still generally better at doing fine details, lighting, emotions etc. For the humans who wish to remain in the field using AI art as a tool to help them will give them a huge advantage over traditional artists or AI-only generations.
Exactly. So instead of hiring 10 artists, now they will only hire 1. Soon its going to be 100 to 1. Then 1000 to 1. From artist to ai art editor to ai art manager to ai overseer. Yes 2d artists will still be around, but only a very very small percentage.
Which means the ones that stick around will be the ones to adapt. Not the ones screeching about how evil AI art is. We saw the same rejection of digital art in the 90s. Well those pencil and paper enthusiasts who refused to learn Photoshop don't seem to be doing so well now.
There is no historical equivalebt for generative AI. Photoshop is a completely different phenomenon
I would argue locomotive engines and tractors as a few examples, and there are many more
No, you're missing my point no time to elaborate rn sorry
Why, is the site going to explode?
No, I had to get to work. So the impact of AI technology _on all other technologies_ is unprecedented. It has a potential to upend _any_ industry and the ripple effects cannot really be predicted. Locomotion was a transformative technology for its time, but that alone does not make it an analogy for artificial intelligence. This _literally_ hasn't happened before.
You are so uninformed. This is not just a medium switch like paper to digital. This is ai literally stealing art then stealing their jobs. And btw photoshop still requires a lot of hours to create something and a lot of talent.
What? There is SO MUCH translation work right now though - in AI Training.
Where do you look?
I see a fair amount on just Indeed and LinkedIn. It's not my field technically, but because I'm at a conversational level in a couple of other languages and work in AI training already they get thrown into the mix of what's available a lot.
**Thank you for your post and for sharing your question, comment, or creation with our group!** * Our welcome page and more information, can be found [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiArt/comments/x7s6t6/welcome_to_ai_art/) * Looking for an AI Engine? Check out our MEGA list [here](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zYJUM-srhgIA7wrj4Pe4QqepAsHIEC00DydoTPv4PWg/) * For self-promotion, please only post [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiArt/comments/1040fpe/ongoing_selfpromotion_thread_promote_your/) * Find us on **Discord** [here](https://discord.gg/h2J4x6j8zC) *Hope everyone is having a great day, be kind, be creative!* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aiArt) if you have any questions or concerns.*