I think it is also worth considering that “artist” is very broad.
Digital artists (and potentially songwriters?) seem very vulnerable, but I expect that my role as a programmer/CS researcher will be 100% automated before I can hire a robot to be even a mediocre photographer. Photorealistic image generation probably reduces the demand for some kinds of photography (stock photography?), but not the need to capture real events like weddings. Painters*, sculptors, and other physical-medium artists seem even less exposed. Even if a robot could paint something nice, I suspect that people buying paintings will prefer that they were made by a human (I would).
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of AI-vulnerability by type of artist, as well as how much society cares about preserving each form of art as something that humans should do.
* Additionally, I wouldn’t be surprised if “person who physically paints” is the first kind of artist people think of when they hear the word “artist.”
I expect that my role as a programmer/CS researcher will be 100% automated before I can hire a robot to be even a mediocre photographer.
I think image models are getting good enough at fidelity that you could, hypothetically, have some random guy take pictures of an event, and then postprocess them with an image model to make the lighting and perspective better without it being visibly AI-generated.
Even if a robot could paint something nice, I suspect that people buying paintings will prefer that they were made by a human
This isn’t limited to art. Even generic, boring cubicle jobs prefer humans on the basis that they can be held accountable and can (usually)explain the reasoning behind anything they did. Also, because of the variousbullshit job reasons(Flunkies, box-tickers, and goons definitely can’t be automated).
>I think image models are getting good enough at fidelity that you could, hypothetically, have some random guy take pictures of an event, and then postprocess them with an image model to make the lighting and perspective better without it being visibly AI-generated.
I have done this with the best recent models, and almost nobody has been able to tell. It is absolutely trivial to take a photo on a phone, and ask Nano Banana to “make it look like it was taken by a professional photographer using a DSLR applying expert color grading.” Easy as that.
I think it is also worth considering that “artist” is very broad.
Digital artists (and potentially songwriters?) seem very vulnerable, but I expect that my role as a programmer/CS researcher will be 100% automated before I can hire a robot to be even a mediocre photographer. Photorealistic image generation probably reduces the demand for some kinds of photography (stock photography?), but not the need to capture real events like weddings. Painters*, sculptors, and other physical-medium artists seem even less exposed. Even if a robot could paint something nice, I suspect that people buying paintings will prefer that they were made by a human (I would).
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of AI-vulnerability by type of artist, as well as how much society cares about preserving each form of art as something that humans should do.
* Additionally, I wouldn’t be surprised if “person who physically paints” is the first kind of artist people think of when they hear the word “artist.”
I think image models are getting good enough at fidelity that you could, hypothetically, have some random guy take pictures of an event, and then postprocess them with an image model to make the lighting and perspective better without it being visibly AI-generated.
This isn’t limited to art. Even generic, boring cubicle jobs prefer humans on the basis that they can be held accountable and can (usually) explain the reasoning behind anything they did. Also, because of the various bullshit job reasons (Flunkies, box-tickers, and goons definitely can’t be automated).
>I think image models are getting good enough at fidelity that you could, hypothetically, have some random guy take pictures of an event, and then postprocess them with an image model to make the lighting and perspective better without it being visibly AI-generated.
I have done this with the best recent models, and almost nobody has been able to tell. It is absolutely trivial to take a photo on a phone, and ask Nano Banana to “make it look like it was taken by a professional photographer using a DSLR applying expert color grading.” Easy as that.