> I really hate the idea that AI can replace artists, or humans as a whole. I think it’s anti-human to its core.

AI can no more replace artists, than other artists can.

A sunset can be nice to look at yet be created without meaning. Any non-conscious process that produces images can produce beauty that has worth without intentionality. Any conscious process that produces artworks is just another artist.

Most artists would rather there be more artists in the world than fewer. If AI can't make art, it can't replace artists. If AI can make art (of the conscious intent form) then there are more artists.

▲

slopinthebag a day ago | parent [-]

Well, I think an AI model could replace artists in a meaningful way without being conscious. So you end up with less artists.

Art is about human expression, it's not about the reflection of light off a surface. But economically I could see a world in which human expression is replaced by a facsimile and the world would be worse off for it. And that is what scares me.

Brave new world indeed.

edit: whoever downvoted the person replying to me, shame on you. they make good points and makes for good discussion.

	▲	Lerc a day ago \| parent [-]
		I think the fundamental problem is that art is not economical. Banksy once made a comment about the advertising industry, more or less to the effect that for all the corrupting influence of Advertising, the thing he truly hates about it is that it consumes the most creative people to do so. People will make things they don't care about to survive. This is how we get reality television. Irrespective of what the short term future of AI is, sooner or later there will be technical means of sustaining yourself without needing to work. If we aim for a society that values working on something because they believe in it, then we could have a better world. Right now it seems the only thing a lot of people are aiming for is to undermine whatever their adversaries want.