Yeah, I get that completely, I'm the same way. I just think it's interesting. It's kind of the same argument as piracy, since most people wouldn't pay for what they download if it wasn't free.

What is different in this case is that large companies are very likely looking to replace artists with ai, which is a huge potential impact. Piracy never had such risks

I think this will only happen if you could selectively replace parts within an image selectively and reliably. There are still major problems even in Photoshops genaI application. For example, it is not possible select the head of a person on a picture and then type "smile" to make the face smile. We might get there eventually.

I'd rather think it's the same argument as open-source and public domain. Currently, I am researching an agent that ReAct's through a game of TicTacToe. I am using a derivative of the open-source transformer's prompt

> I'd rather think it's the same argument as open-source and public domain.

In the context of the point I made, it's definitely more similar to piracy, since the point was about taking advantage of something that if not free people would not pay for.

However, the blogs or newspapers or print outlets that used to hire them hired them because you couldn’t- it was a differentiator.

That differentiator is gone, and as such won’t pay for it anymore. They’ll just use the same AI as you.

This destroys the existing market of the artist.

To be clear, my comment isn’t meant as a judgment, just as market analysis.

I think it does not take into consideration how much thought and expertise goes into design work. Have a look at the recent controversy about the live-action shooter "concord" that failed spectacularly mainly due to bad character design.

Here are two videos that explain that well. I don't think I would ever be capable of designing with that degree of purpose given a generative AI tool.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVyXUMJLzE0 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eymH15AfAU

Thanks for the links Im glad there are people who are experts at character design. For my untrained eyes it just looks like all of the characters are muddy coloured ( washed out greens brown etc ) AND they are pretty much all incredibly ugly. I think I saw one that atleast looked fashionable, the black sniper female.

The older I get the more concerned I get that the larger the team that makes decisions the worse the decisions are, whats the word for this? Is there any escape? Teamfortress 2, took years and teams to build, but it was just perfect.

I heard they had a flat structure which is even more confusing as to how they attained such an excellent product.

Bureaucracy and hierarchy are much more damaging to good products than a large team. The flat structure and long timelines are how they overcame the limitations of a large team.

Thanks for the reply, I guess thats the secret

There is plenty of space between black and white.

I have taste just no skill in drawing. I don't need an artist, i need a graphics designer and now i can replace a graphics designer with GenAI.

Plenty of Artists can draw very well, but what they learn in the industry is to learn to draw for someone else in an aligned art style etc. That has nothing to do with Art.

Very few people earn there living with being artists.

Its the same thing with all the other people. Look at masterpieces of woodworkers etc. They look interesting, nice but they normall just work for someone else doing their craft not their art.

This is about as realistic as replacing coders with ai tools today. High level content organizations demand creative precision that even models like Flux can ape but not replace. Maybe to a non-artist it would be comparable, but to a creative team its not close.