Robots Replacing Artists

>>3052731
What that means for artists is we will be competing with machines to not be replaced, and my prediction is that we will work our way back from the simplest forms of art towards where we were in the Renaissance, until finally even the average robot could sculpt the Pieta.

That means that digital artists, illustrators, and photograph painters will be left behind when the demand for that art goes down because it will be replaced by art made by machines.

The best forward thinking thing to do is to start practicing for what machines won't be able to do right away. Become an Impressionist. Become a Neo-Classical artist. Become a Baroque artist, and finally paint like Michelangelo. That's the only way you will make a living doing this, because if you do the simplest art forms you won't make a career out of this. You have to be as good as they were in the past, because how trendy you are in the present doesn't matter. We have to be better than machines until we simply can't anymore.

>>3052731

A robot can draw a doujin. By the time that it can do so this world would be near reset.

>>3052748
can't* how did I let that typo slip

>>3052749
It'll learn to do that before it learns to paint the Mona lisa

>>3052731
did a robot really paint that? it's pretty cool if so, bit sketchy for human work though, but getting there. reminds me a bit of that style, i think it's call 'pastoral realism' or something, it's an american style

literally who cares, you can't replace creativity

>>3052770
sure you can lol. that's the whole point of machine learning is teaching them to be creative, so they can come to conclusions on their own.

>>3052768
Nah it's the top submission on the newest draw thread.

I agree that in enough time, machines will replace us, but artists are among the least threatened professionals there are right now. Many more jobs will be obsolete before the illustrator and the concept artist, so we're not unique. By the time artists need to worry we'll already have universal basic income, or anarchy.

On the bright side, I'll probably die before the robots take over.

>>3052779
That's science fiction though. Right now, a machine can't draw as much as a stick figure all on its own. They can only copy or apply filters on top of it.

>>3052737
Ahahaha

File: 01.jpg (67KB, 835x557px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 835x557px

This is true, but it is not a bad thing. It will be like then the camera was invented, exploding into entirely new fields of The Arts.
Think of it as tools to make YOUR art better. You the artist will become the director with an fully staffed studio. It will be awesome. It is still up to you to figure out how to engage people through your art, just as it is now. AI on it's own will do no better than conglomerates like Sony and Disney are doing now. Spitting out cat pictures, moeblobs and superhero movies or whatever the algorithms of the times predicts.
Doctor, lawyer, begger man and thief, all human labour face will be obsolete with advancing technology. Creatives such as us are not in a bad spot, we will be some of the last phased out. Probably only social workers come after us.

>>3052731

Before it happens, we'll have golden decades where artists can do art with the assistance of a robot, instead of being replaced.
Imagine a comic book artist, he could have a robot not simply to ink his work, but will be able to teach it to ink his work as he would've done it. Same for coloring. Now instead of tendinitis and deadlines, he can have a full sleep and produce twice as much comic-books in his lifetime.

I wouldn't think too much about the era after that, because the world itself will have changed so much that whatever we can think of will be as accurate as our parents when they though they would've flying cars by the 2000's.

>>3053034
>Probably only social workers come after us.
its funny cause that was actually what i was thinking when i was writing the OP too. Therapists are probably going to be the last thing to go lol. It's already kind of a non-job, but it's so specifically about being human and "feelings" that talking to a machine wouldn't have the same impact.

>>3052731
My theory is that even though robots might be able to generate images, they'll never have the facility or neuroplasticity to decide based on vague prompts or "commisions" what they'd draw to fit a specific need, because it's impossible to give the robot the neuroplasticity of a human brain

Trying to give a robot the neuroplasticity of a human brain is impossible because in isolation, it's a phenomenon with more complex systems than the visible Universe

>>3052770
Not only we can.
We already did.
Look it up. There are computers able to compose music on such level that its basically impossible to tell it wasnt man-made.
I wouldnt be surprised if the same was already true for visual arts but even if it wasnt its just a matter of time. 5-10 yrs at most I would say.

>>3053431
the visible universe includes 7 billion human brains.

Yeah, but honestly, who cares? Who would prefer to watch art made by machines, with no human behind it? Who would like to listen to a piece of music made by machine, and not a human being?

It could only change something for illustrators/people who draw manga or anime/animators in general/people who draw porn. But it cannot happen in fine art, since in fine art there is much more to the piece than the piece itself.

>>3052731
First piece of advice; start using Legacy Captcha.

>>3053601
>Who would prefer to watch art made by machines, with no human behind it? Who would like to listen to a piece of music made by machine, and not a human being?
this is not a good argument. That's like saying "Who would want a car that drives itself if you could drive it yourself". Personally if there was a radio station that had some algorithm that spit out nothing but hit songs after hit songs i wouldn't care that a human didn't play the guitar on it. Same with paintings. If the average person could get an original masterpiece painting basically for free who would care if a person made it or not?

>>3053573
It would still be impossible to create something like that manually or even with the mechanical precision of a robot/machine

>>3053562
>5-10 yrs at most I would say.
that's what makes competing with machines so interesting to me. In comparison, the progression of the Renaissance to contemporary art was a slow progression. 500-600 years. By comparison the time we will have to compare with machine made art could be a span of 40 or 50 years, maybe less. As a job, art will be gone so quickly once the snowball starts rolling we won't even have time to improve to compete with them.

Only an advanved A.I. would be capable of such things. At that point the world will have changed so drastically that there's no telling what will happen or how to prepapre.

>>3052731
Except, you and other retards who have been making those threads, the art quality when it comes to entertainment have become a lot better than it was before. And it still gets better. No AI will outdo the top performance artists that make the best looking art now, because AI can't into rendering, AI can't into subtlety, AI can't into anything that requires real talent and skill.

But yeah, machines will overtake everything yadda yadda kill yourself brainlet

>>3053709
robots can do surgery, robots will cure cancer, what makes you think we can't make them do art?

>>3053712
Art is not methodical, there are unlimited solutions to everything there and by subtle changes you can create a new meaning. Why do I have to explain this to you?

>>3052731
Parametric and procedural software have been used for years in commercial art (including architecture and industrial design)

It's actually standard to most peoples workflows in many fields.

Also human competition will put you out of work before a machine.

Machines will have removed labor from the equation by the time they can make art. So there is nothing to fret about, you will be free to make art all day long, in fact it might be the only thing you can do.

>>3053722
>Also human competition will put you out of work before a machine.

technically human competition has become tougher because of machines. everyone's workflows are augmented by machines, allowing them to do more for less. which means more work can be done by fewer people, therefore, fewer available jobs for artists, because of machines doing their work

>>3053726
you sound like a luddite

>>3052731
>entire opinion debunked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOEMKPQVuJk

>>3053729
a luddite would present these facts as something undesirable, no?

The funny thing is it's still going to be more profitable to just hire an artist to do exactly what's needed than work with AI and waste more time in getting the exact same result. And that is with concept art, illustration is something you won't get from computers if you want it to be good.

>>3053748
>it's still going to be more profitable to just hire an artist to do exactly what's needed than work with AI and waste more time
because computers are infamous for wasting time and being inefficient, right anon? oh wait that's people.

>>3053755
we are talking about pros, not some random trash. Artists dont get paid much, what would be the reason to replace them and get shit just to save a tiny bit of money

i'll be dead by the time robots become advanced enough to matter so why should i give a shit

>>3053761
you don't know if you'll be back here

>>3053759
>what would be the reason to replace them and get shit just to save a tiny bit of money
SO THEY CAN SAVE A TINY BIT OF MONEY! do you not understand how running a business works? if you think replacing part of your work force with a machine that doesn't need to be paid is a BAD idea...

>>3053791
Do you realize that maintaining AI needs people too? And who is going to fix the mess that it produces? Also I was talking about the biggest players in the industry who have budget of millions for their projects. Art is a tiny percentage in it, it really is better to just hire a competent guy than fuck around with some shitty generator, you people forget that whatever AI is going to make - it's not going to be good.

>>3053798
>you people forget that whatever AI is going to make - it's not going to be good.
that's just simply not true. look at driverless cars. less accidents than human drivers, and when they do get in accidents its usually the fault of other humans not the driverless car.

That's like saying a calculator isn't as reliable as a human in mathematics. And don't just say "muh creativity" as a response.

File: faggots.jpg (40KB, 239x283px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 239x283px

not gonna bother to engage, you wrote this OP to be tripe.

Narrow AI will be a pheripheral tool and artists will simply be required to churn out more shit with its help that's it.

If we reach General AI we will quickly transition to General Super AI through iterative self-improvement (essentially singularity) and all non-augmented humans will be phased out of the economy if not existence. Worrying about competing with a humanlike AI is moronic. Like worrying about getting a tan from an incoming nuclear explosion

>>3052731
This thread is a collection of babies first thoughts about both Art and AI.

These basic bitch musings tell me you're not only clueless about software but also art. You better pray for UBI and Robots cause i'm not sure you're capable of wiping your own ass.

>>3053833
And what are your thoughts on the subject, Mr. Adult?

>>3053843
first hand knowledge, pick up a pencil or write a line of code. good luck.

>>3053274
I like this idea. There will definitely be robotic assistance or an a.i. that can learn how to use software. Like a external super computer that connects to a p.c. that knows photoshop and can learn "style" from studying what you do when you draw/paint

File: july-9-2017.jpg (852KB, 825x1000px) Image search: [Google]

852KB, 825x1000px

>>3053858
>pick up a pencil
alright. done. your turn.

"post your work" isn't an opinion btw

>>3052737
This is what "artists" actually believe.

Technology is a tool. Learn to use it to your advantage. BE the cutting edge, technology never replaces a job that was worth having in the first place.

File: shitty merc meme.png (227KB, 491x612px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 491x612px

>>3052731
at least they'll never make a robot who can shitpost as hard as we do.

>>3052731
Robots have no purpose to replace artists. Executives can't yell at a robot to guess what they want from broken communication and somehow manage to come up with a functional design.

The capitalism that is forcing robots to replace other jobs would have to be replaced themselves before even the basic commercial artists can be replaced by robots. Fine artists are even harder to replace because most of the time people admire the artist, not the art.

>>3052737
Nigger, machines are more likely to replicate life than stylize it.
Fucking cartoons are safer than your sacred Loomis.

>>3052731
oh my god you're so fucking retarded you are legitimately an invalid.


STOP MAKING THESE THREADS AND JERKING OFF TO YOUR OWN SHITTY RETARD IDEAS AND FUCKING DRAW YOU PIECE OF SHIT WORTHLESS CUNT

>>3054092
This

I think more than anything, robots will supplement the future artist. Being an extremely useful tool for those that use it.

>>3053685
>"Who would want a car that drives itself if you could drive it yourself"
That was the argument for audio books, turns out they're not much of an industry.
You can't compare necessitites with pleasures. People who have hobbies, appreciate art or enjoy gourmet food won't accept the ihobbies, iarts and ifoods because it inherently robs them of the pleasure they derive from those activities.

>>3052731
all of that will happen, but not in our lifetimes, more like in 100 ~ 500 years

AI typically progress by fits and starts, and right now is stagnat with deep learning. probably in around 30 years we'll see another small revolution in the field, and so on.

>>3053755
>because computers are infamous for wasting time and being inefficient, right anon?
In musical production, yes they are.
Turns out you'd rather have a band of people who all have agency and can contribute than brain-rottingly meddle with each instrument in a composing program by yourself and in the end you end up hiring musicians to add humanity to the composition because people can tell an recorded orchestra from a soundfile collection.

The same has been true of visual production for decades and it's specially heinous in graphic design where they've had the tools to completely replace traditional media since the 70's but Windsor & Newton, Pentel, Staedtler, etc. are richer than ever because people prefer to sketch and dummy live because it's faster and time is more valuable than money.

Machines being inherently better is a meme, systems that incorporate machines can be better but some things (gold mining, logging, watchmaking, audiovisual production, writing, cooking, geriartric care, among others) just don't work and have been proven to not work constantly despite how hard capitalists want to replace them with robots.

In fact I wouldn't be surprised if some of the jobs that have been taken by robots are retaken by people before most of the jobs that robots supposedly will be doing in 50 years actually are.

File: fuckouttahere.jpg (53KB, 552x607px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 552x607px

>>3052731
No they will not
You are stupid
Go draw

/thread

>>3054131
yes, also in chess. even though a chess engine will be pretty much perfect at chess it will often take longer to find a move that a grand master will play instantly.

chess is actually a good case study for this sort of thing as chess engines are better at chess than people but a person guiding a chess engine is better than a chess engine on it's own.

another example is circuit boards, computer aided design is very important in circuit boards and saves tons of time and money and makes the very complex stuff we have now possible, but if you just leave the computer to it you still end up with a mess, a human is required there too.

so perhaps it's better to think of it in terms of us one day having very advanced tools for making art, rather than us being replaced.

>>3052731
You are such a god damned idiot man. I'm not trolling and I don't care if you're posts are moronic on purpose. You are the dumbest fucking person on this board.

I fucking hate your art. every time I see it I fucking cringe and want to light myself on fire and jump out the fuckin window.

File: whatdidhemeanbythis.gif (1MB, 268x274px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 268x274px

>>3053765
>you don't know if you'll be back here

>>3053909
Still shit as always, Brian . Learn how to fucking blend and stop hiding behind style.

>>3054240
Are you serious? This is far better than most people on /ic/ and he's actually considered the brush strokes, it's not 'muh style'. Fuck wasting huge amounts of time blending for the sake of 'muh realism'.

>>3054249
no it's not u idiot. most people on /ic are actually good.

>>3053685
because a lot people care more about the life and story of artist than his paintings e.g Van Gogh

>>3052731
Not really worried. By that time most other jobs will be replaced as well.
I have faith in the idea that we as a society will likely find some way to compensate for it one way or another.

>>3052731
>He thinks art only has to do with drawing pretty pictures with some accuracy
You have such an elementary and naive understanding of art, lad I really quite cute. Machines lack a heart and soul, that's why they will never create anything that lasts throughout time.

>>3054299
good point let's come up with an AI algorithm that shits out fake artist life stories

>>3054249
We mostly see the digital "artists" because traditional is simply too inconvenient to take a picture of and post. I almost say thank goodness. Imagine if there's another shameless hack who will incessantly make retarded threads to shill their soulless nonsensical art and philosophy.

>>3054345
Yes, cloning so that only the Rothschild family and their self-replacements remains in the post-AI overtake.

>>3054360
I agree with your criticism of OP but "heart and soul" are hardly arguing points. Perhaps we lack those things as well or perhaps they too can be simulated. All that being said by the time a machine is capable of making more clever pieces with stronger storytelling than a human being, they'll have eclipsed us in everything else. At that point if we're not all dead then it is extremely unlikely that we'll have to worry about working any sort of job.

>>3053028
>Right now, a machine can't draw as much as a stick figure all on its own.
Neither can you. "all on its own"? Someone taught you. How to hold the crayon, told you what to draw and so on.

>>3053791
>SO THEY CAN SAVE A TINY BIT OF MONEY! do you not understand how running a business works?
Yes, and you don't run a business by saving tiny bits of money. You gotta spend money to make money. Nobody ever got rich by saving.

>>3052731
First thing to go away will most likely be "paint by numbers" types of art where the artist's only a buffer between the one that wants the piece and the piece itself. Tattoo artists gon get fuked.
Second I believe will be photo realism, where there's minimum creative input and you follow a distinct pattern in creating the piece.
But when it gets creative it's difficult to know. I doubt architecture and interior design will go early, because it's too tied to the designers. People still want pretty buildings and chairs, and the computer don't know what pretty is, not to mention that you can't stick "designed by Wall-E" on the box. You might see more collabs between designers and computers for things like buildings and cars where the maths are really important, but except for very specific uses I doubt you'll have computer only.

Last one will be conceptual art. If it will ever happen.

Im not interested in any art that can be generated by computers on a level beyond "huh thats pretty neat i guess" art is a reflection of the human condition i dont think robots can ever replace that unless they were androids living a life just like us with brains wired the same.

>>3052731
Art has value because it is made by a human being. Without a man behind it, it's not worth jack shit. Only plebs don't understand that.

>>3054412
>you don't run a business by saving tiny bits of money
majority of millionaires is extremely frugal

>>3054403
I don't consider the storytelling bit as "heart and soul".
One only needs to read Tarkovsky's Sculpting in Time to understand my own shared view.

>>3054372
how is a painting of a plant "nonsensical"?

>>3054719
wouldnt you consider the ability to build AI as a human condition?
so doesnt it reflect our condition if we let robots replace us as artists ( or other professions).

well but its going to be chill. our urge of self preservation is strong and the fact we have this kind of discussions about future inventions will keep us from this fate of extinguishing our creative spirit. the subject of art will be discussed differently just as it is ever since. thats it. if anything we will be more free in our choices. if that means we choose to let ai take over certain services then its fine by me.
its fascinating how art is already a whole other and bigger field through the help of technical innovation and convergence.

>>3054839
I'd say naive, simple art is going to be on the decline though. Even if machines assist art in the future instead of creating it themselves, that just means there will be more demand for good art. You just have to look at the front page of reddit's art sections to see how bad art is right now. Part of why I want machines to create competition for artists is so art gets better. So we actually have some pressure of being replaced, and the public demands more out of it's artists.

I want the days of "WOW IT LOOKS JUST LIKE A PHOTOGRAPH" to go away, and be replaced by a dismissive "A machine could've made this, but better".

I want the gap between mechanical art and human art to be wider because right now a lot of popular fine art, graphic design, and illustration looks more mechanical than human anyways.

Just have to look at an Apple store to see how far we've fallen in aesthetics. People almost WANT their work to look like it was done by a robot now.

>>3054848
(More to say on that) I want the future to be as beautiful as it was in the Renaissance. I think /ic/ as a whole would agree with that. I don't want the future that looks like it was made in a factory. Clean edges, white walls, and in general what people see as "the future" isn't human to me, what's human to me is the Sistine Chapel, or the Sphinx, or Notre Dame. Real human effort and expression and beauty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu6FiYwr_qc

this video just came out, thoughts?

>>3054743
In their personal lives not their business practices.
If you company has to cut costs to sustain profit it's literally a dead man walking.

>>3054792
It's not just that one particular painting, and art does not consist of only subject. (I'm also no one else in this thread except the person you have jus replied to) It's the insistence on certain try-hard stylization based on some whacky delusions and a host of other things.

>>3053909
my god, so this whole thread was spurned by the fact that your work looks like one of those fucking paint filter apps. no wonder you're scared of robots.

im a robot and i can confirm in a few years you guys are pretty fucked lol