Humanity hasn't learned to automate "art". Humanity has learned to automate some aspects of technical aspects of creating images and to imitate some prevailing styles.

So they've learned to automate art.

I mean, we've done the same with farming. Is it 100% automated? No, not at all, but we've removed something like 99% of the human labor involved that would have occurred around 200 years ago.

Player pianos were invented in 1896, yet we don't consider piano playing to be a dead art. Indeed I don't believe people even pay to see player pianos play, where as they will flock to see even the most mediocre and novice players if they're the right humans.

Art without humanity isn't art. Farming can exist without humanity because we need the output to sustain ourselves. But take the humanity out of art, and no one is interested in it.

We pretty much do consider piano playing to be a dead art. You're much more likely to hear recorded music of some sort than a live performance. It's very niche today.

Watching live piano performances has always been niche. The point is that the player piano didn’t replace them, but moreover player piano concerts aren’t even a thing. The human element turns out to be an important factor here.

> Watching live piano performances has always been niche.

Having live piano performance at a bar or other venue was extraordinarily common. There's still piano bars, but...

No it wasn't. Time was almost every British pub had a piano and that's where your musical entertainment came from. All music was live because what other choice was there? The particular form varied by culture of course: mine was more ceilidh oriented.

I dunno, I feel like there's something qualitatively different between pub music used to liven the atmosphere of a venue, where the primary activity is socializing with your friends and consuming alcohol; and art, which is what we're talking about. That is, just because a piano is used to create art, doesn't mean that everything that comes out of a piano is art. I think that applies to Midjourney as well.

But electronic computer music (including pianos) allows us to enjoy many more genres of music nowadays than it was some while ago when only "the elevated" afforded to go to a piano concert.

The difference is that player pianos can only replay previously existing songs, while Midjourney can create something novel in under a minute. The problem that's being solved is not everyone wants to spend thousands of hours learning how to draw in order to have the (artistically competent) end product in their hands.

That doesn't mean art has been automated; it means we've invented a better paint brush.

A paint brush that will paint a painting for you, no artist needed.

As if the main thing behind being an artist is using a paint brush competently...

I think AI is terrible for a lot of midrange commercial graphics. I don't think it's bad for "art."

Maybe artist was the wrong word, painter would be more appropriate.

Most cases of people paying to see human performers are of performing already-written music though, so I doubt think that's the drawcard. Actually I don't think anyone truly knows why we obviously gain something from watching live performers that can't be obtained from watching them even on the best quality home entertainment system imaginable (*), but at least part of it is feeling like you're part of the performance, knowing that the performers feed off the reactions of the audience etc.

(*) And why has there never been a market for broadcasting music performances in cinemas?

You're right of course. I should have tapped 'most commercially viable art.'

Graphic designers, corporate advertising, media productions; video game artwork, the artistic channels where many creatives earn a square meal even if it isn't the most human and soulful type of art.