>>5775275>>5775306>>5775430>>5775469>>5775488>>5775644The thing you guys are overlooking as you tunnel vision on this ethereal boogeyman of AI replacing artists, is that, long before AI generates actual art, AI is going to be assisting artists as a tool to augment and speed up the process.
At first its going to be simple, helping maintain proper value ranges, smoothing out poor line strokes, etc. Soon after, AI will be able to correct advanced perspective issues, like foreshortened limbs reaching out to the camera. You'll also start seeing anatomy correction, and automation of things like line weight control. Not long after that, AI will be giving guidance on composition, appealing shape design, and quality of gesture. Sounds awesome right? For creative decision makers and hobbyists who just want results faster, sure.
The problem this spells out is, not long from now, your art education and skill is no longer going to be a factor. The playing field is going to be leveled for professional artists. A 12 year old will have equal qualifications to you, and if he has better imagination then you, it doesn't matter that you studied at Watts Atelier, lost years off your lifespan grinding in a grueling pipeline of a school like FZD. All that draftsmanship and mileage you put in there is no longer relevant. Because the AI will have that covered, now you only need to be able to "think" as an artist.
So what else does this mean? It means the economic value of artists has been reduced, now that the barrier to entry has been lowered, and your years of skill-building rendered obsolete. For working artists, not only has your pay been cut, but your competition has increased by a dramatic magnitude now that anyone with an imagination can be a working artist.
The only ones able to make a decent living will be those in senior positions, independent artists with a specific niche, and those involved with the development of the AI. You guys are barking up the wrong tree.
