With all the fuzz about IA image “stealing” illustrator job, I am curious about how much photography changed the art world in the 19th century.

There was a time where getting a portrait done was a relatively big thing, requiring several days of work for a painter, while you had to stand still for a while so the painter knew what you looked like, and then with photography, all you had to do was to stand still for a few minutes, and you’ll get a picture of you printed on paper the next day.

How did it impact the average painter who was getting paid to paint people once in their lifetime.

  • Bob@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    AI isn’t stealing jobs any more than cheap clip art has. The only people who would resort to AI for illustration stopped hiring actual artists ages ago, they buy from shutterstock and the like instead.

    The reason artists are pissed id because they used our art to train the AI without our permission. And no, its not the same thing as an artist learning from others, first because of the scale, and second because a student who is learning from other artists isn’t looking to copy an existing style, they’re learning and developing their own. AI just regurgitates what it already knows and attempts to imitate the style of an actual person. It was developed specifically to do that.

    If a human being copies the style of another artist rather than develop their own, they’ll be called out too. No one has ever been okay with that, ever.

    • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The reason artists are pissed id because they used our art to train the AI without our permission.

      I mean, it’s license violation or it’s not. It’s your own fault or you can sue, like with everything art on the internet. I don’t get the buz.