> A few days later I found myself in a grocery checkout line, skimming through yet another article in which the writer touted the wonders of “artificial intelligence” and fretted hazily over whether we are nearing the point when AI will be able to produce novels, films, and other creative work, effectively replacing us. When I looked up and over to other people in the line, half of them wore the same shoe brand as me.
This is an interesting phenomenon with AI. People immediately assume that because AI has the ability to flood the market with mediocre art/writing/whatever, that artists and writers are screwed. In my experience it's quite the opposite; when the market gets flooded with repetitive mediocre garbage, the relative scarcity of something unique increases and actually increases the price, accordingly.
To the author's point, you can get the same Adidas shoe as everyone else for $50, or you can get a largely similar-looking pair of Guccis for ~$800 US[0]. Those Guccis would not exist if not for the mass-market cheap option; there would be no reason to splurge on an expensive unique purchase if everyone else was already wearing something unique. Or not wearing shoes at all.
This has been my experience since the introduction of stable diffusion and dall-e as well. Just anecdotal, as I don't have any access to hard data, but the artists I've spoken to say that their commissions and fanbox subscriptions have gone up since SD was released. Much like the trope of friend groups keeping an ugly friend around to make themselves look better, the mediocre and soulless AI art that's flooding the internet has, apparently, made people appreciate human output as a premium brand.
> Those Guccis would not exist if not for the mass-market cheap option; there would be no reason to splurge on an expensive unique purchase if everyone else was already wearing something unique.
I would have a slightly different take. They all exist for the same reason: extremely cheap labour overseas. That's why there's enough spare cash sloshing around to provide what is the main differentiating factor: marketing. Get the marketing right and you can charge far more for almost the same product. If your shoes were made locally and cost $200 on average, you'd a) pick shoes for longevity, not looks, and b) not be that impressed with shoes that cost "only" 4x more.
To translate this to AI: they're both using AI. Just one has better marketing paid for by higher prices.
AI art isn't as good as human art. But in a few years it will probably be better. It's a foolish mistake to look at the state of AI today and say "Actually this is gonna be great for my creative business!"
What is scary about AI is not ChatGPT or Midjourney, Dalle, whatever. What is scary is that they showed up 10 years sooner than the earliest predictions, and are still rapidly improving. That is what should give people pause and it's amazing how many people miss this.
> AI art isn't as good as human art. But in a few years it will probably be better.
This is a very big "probably". About as big as the "in a few years, AI drivers will probably be better than human drivers" line from 2015.
Regardless: an AI can definitively be better than a human at something like Go (a closed game with a clear win condition) or driving (a logistical task with no creativity). But how do you define "better" when it comes to art? From a technical perspective, AI is already better than the vast majority of human artists! Very few artists would be able to, say, draw images of nature to create something that has the same contours as a popular meme[0].
So, arguably, we're already at the point where AI-generated art is "better" than human art. The question is, does that matter? Or does it matter in the same way that it matters that a motorcycle is faster than Usain Bolt?
By better, I mean the point at which having artistic ability is no longer a viable money maker. It already hardly is, but I know a few artists who get by working in corporate graphics departments doing all manner of graphic design.
There will come a day when someone realizes they don't need a team of artists, they just need one. And that one doesn't need to be that good (read: paid well) either.
Human art isn't going to disappear. Definitely not. But the value of it is on the cusp of falling dramatically. Banksy will stay popular and still command millions. However that kid who you graduated with that is "an incredible artist" probably just went from a 75% chance of a decent artistic career to a 3% chance.
Yes, this will shift markets a lot.
But hasn't this happened a lot of times?
There are almost no tailors anymore, but in the 1800 going to a tailor was the only option to get clothes. Now it's a niche.
Now this will happen with graphics and writing as well.
Handmade graphics will become a niche, and there will be top graphic artists working for new AI models, like top tailors now do in fashion.
This is just the beginning of extreme market disruptions.
All commercial driving will certainly be automated within the next 25 years.
Things will change. Markets will adapt.
And if the rich are smart, they won't let people starve. Because this does not serve anyone. Hungry angry mobs will sow chaos and destruction.
>showed up 10 years sooner than the earliest predictions
Bit of a nitpick but the best known predictor of this kind of stuff is probably Ray Kurzweil and he's predicted AI passing the Turing test for 2029 since 2005 or so, so the state of AI being a little pre Turing now is almost spot on.
He also got AI beating humans at chess correct to within a year. It's not actually that hard - you plot computer capabilities on a log graph and extend the line a bit.
What is maybe a little scary and amazing how many people dismiss is the bit after 2029.
This is an interesting phenomenon with AI. People immediately assume that because AI has the ability to flood the market with mediocre art/writing/whatever, that artists and writers are screwed. In my experience it's quite the opposite; when the market gets flooded with repetitive mediocre garbage, the relative scarcity of something unique increases and actually increases the price, accordingly.
To the author's point, you can get the same Adidas shoe as everyone else for $50, or you can get a largely similar-looking pair of Guccis for ~$800 US[0]. Those Guccis would not exist if not for the mass-market cheap option; there would be no reason to splurge on an expensive unique purchase if everyone else was already wearing something unique. Or not wearing shoes at all.
This has been my experience since the introduction of stable diffusion and dall-e as well. Just anecdotal, as I don't have any access to hard data, but the artists I've spoken to say that their commissions and fanbox subscriptions have gone up since SD was released. Much like the trope of friend groups keeping an ugly friend around to make themselves look better, the mediocre and soulless AI art that's flooding the internet has, apparently, made people appreciate human output as a premium brand.
[0] https://www.nordstrom.com/s/gucci-new-ace-sneaker-women/4701...