This is a bad analogy. If in some far off future we had some magical "auto-doc" device that could heal injuries, etc., but still required someone with sufficient knowledge to operate the device, I would call them a doctor, or perhaps a medical engineer. Yes.
“Text goes in images come out” is the central conceit of the entire technology, what the hell are you talking about. The entire thing is meant to be super easy. I have used it, it does not require any special expertise.
I understand it and while it’s true, it’s also a deflection. Unless you’re an accelerationist.
Again, another thing that sounds good unless you know what you’re talking about. I paint digitally and with acrylic and oil, which isn’t that different from the methods Da Vinci would have utilized. If you wanted to paint the Mona Lisa in photoshop the expertise required is the same minus only color mixing and physical preparation and finishing. Regardless of method, saying “paint this picture for me” isn’t making art. The claim is on its face absurd. If I go to the hospital and say “heal this person” am I now a doctor?
Weird how all it takes to turn an ostensible leftist into a sneering lib condescending to an entire classification of worker is to insult their little toy.
Yes people famously get into art because they want to get rich.
The rise of CG did eliminate jobs in the SFX area. Make up, costumes, set dec, stop motion animation, animatronics, etc. But whereas someone in animatronics can retrain to use CG, there’s nowhere for an artist being replaced by a neural learning program to go. The program produces a finished end product. There is no pipeline for it to fit into. I feel like pro A.I. people are deliberately obtuse about this.
Simply taking what artists say as gospel isn't any more rational
How about knowing what you’re talking about, is that more rational? Making a painting and taking a photograph have separate and distinct end products, so of course they’re going to fall into separate niches. If a VFX artist working for 70k a year and an AI tool that costs a 2k yearly license produce identical results, than obviously the artist’s job is going to be eliminated to reduce overhead.
artist haven't come to many consensies about generative AI
If you posted or read anything in any artist spaces whatsoever you would know this is untrue
Every non artist who doesn’t know shit about any creative workflow always regurgitates this “it’s a tool that will empower artists” line. Every working artist who understands what they’re talking about says this will lead to the elimination of 90% of jobs and just leave one underpaid guy churning out stolen artwork at a breakneck pace.
AI tech bros don’t create anything and probably never will. The merchant who said “please paint a picture of my wife here’s some money” didn’t create the Mona Lisa. Da Vinci, the guy who actually painted it, created the Mona Lisa.
I think this is why he can’t get his head in the game when it comes to giving her a derisive silly nickname. His style requires spontaneity. “Sleepy joe” isn’t something you think about, it’s something you feel. But all of Donald’s off the cuff thoughts on Kamala thoughts are just hideously racist.