A few more thoughts about Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Art.
Media and news, in their never-ending quest to get more clicks tend to sensationalize AI-related headlines, proclaiming computers will soon replace artists. I think it's a faulty argument. Sure, AI can create some nice imagery - but we (human creatives) should not treat it as a threat but as a challenge. Photography did not kill painting. Theater did not kill books. Movies did not kill theater. TV did not kill music.
I see two?challenges?we need to face off with:
There always will be a market for below-the-line art and illustration. Dime-a-dozen, risk-averse, safe stuff where all that matters is quantity, not quality. Cool. Who wants to do that stuff anyway. Let AI handle it.
领英推荐
As designers, artists and creatives, this leaves the "top" half of creative arena to us. It's the half where we take risks. Where we try new things, sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing. Where we push the visual (and sonic) vocabulary to new territories.
It's now, more than ever that we, the humans need to do what we do best - curate, perfect, innovate and discover.
Rant/manifesto over
Originally published at:?https://qubaxr.com/2022/08/few-more-thoughts-on-artificial-intelligence-machine-learning-and-art/
Software Developer, Innovator, Research Scientist at Peraton Labs
2 年Will future art (even things like logos and banners) have labels indicating their pedigree? (e.g., human vs AI-created)? But the world is already muddy in this regard, I mean Photoshop's filters are algorithms (not AI per-se) but there is already a notion that , well, the artist is turning over his creation to these filters and he does NOT really understand precisely HOW the filter will affect each pixel.. she's trusting the filter and accepting the results.