WSJ News
The threat that technology will replace workers is something more people are grappling with due to the introduction of new tools powered by generative artificial intelligence. Creative workers like artists, writers, and filmmakers are among those raising the loudest alarm. But is their concern warranted? And what impact could AI have on the future workforce?
Join us for the third episode of our series “Artificially Minded” with host Zoe Thomas.
0:00 Artists fear that generative AI could replace them in the future
1:57 Meet Tomer Hanuka, book and magazine cover designer
3:09 How AI art tools like Midjourney and Dall-E 2 work
7:01 How the film industry is using AI in movies like Everything, Everywhere All at Once
9:54 What the advancement of AI could mean for the workforce
12:28 What is skill-biased technical change?
14:08 Why basic roles are important in the creative fields
Tech News Briefing
WSJ’s tech podcast featuring breaking news, scoops and tips on tech innovations and policy debates, plus exclusive interviews with movers and shakers in the industry.
For more episodes of WSJ’s Tech News Briefing: https://link.chtbl.com/WSJTechNewsBriefing
#AI #Art #WSJ
Tiene que ver con mi trabajo de APROPIACION CREATIVA!!
Photography was a tool and also art. This is the same. Artists have vision, AI enhances it. If someday it self generates its own art, it will definitely not be figurative.
Pressing the self-destruct button…are we?Why are we doing this to ourselves as a human race?Why do we entirely automate human creativity at its best:art of any form and our freedom to think?This is what separates us from the rest of the living species… We should treasure not destroy it. By drastically limiting creativity
through automation, our ability to create will rapidly become extinct-at the same rate that AGI develops. For what, for cutting costs to increase profits, a blunt short term strategy employed by a few CEOs and investors that have dreamt up such applications to fill up their pockets? We're not talking about the film making industry and its repetitive processes that may lend themselves to automation thus cutting costs and unproductive time- not everybody makes films, although even here, applying the same cut costing exercise, why not replace all expensive ever demanding actors with cartoons and with as many robots as possible? Since our capacity to create or imagine things will get to a dry fig in size, we cease to be a target market /audience for the film industry which in self defeatist manner will also become extinct in 15-20 years max. It will all be lucrative games and cartoons for blank staring humanoids and their mobile telephones . How are governments preparing for their nation turning into zombies as the financial cost is unfathomable?
While we shall destroy real art and artists, the lesser moronic ones that until now didn't stand a chance and couldn't make it in the real Artist's world will now be able to use AI as a strong crutch to copy the real artists. 'Plagiarise, plagiarise and don't apologise! ' Bill Gates
AI itself will replace those who made it by creating even better versions of itself.
Why is there ways that musicians can get royalties that they get even if the original artist doesn't have anything to do with the project but get paid for the use of their name being used in the reference of their style so it's a win win for everyone and preventing the legal issues that Napster faced
Being a lawyer do you think that it's fair if the artist gets royalties when someone else is using their name as a reference and makes money Like in the case of the song that went viral using DRAKES name?
Art is worth because it's hard to create. If u can create it with such ease, then it becomes worthless. The economics of art and auction can collapse. All costly paintings in museum can become worthless, since AI may create better ones.
Times change….sorry to the artist 🤷 its going to happen! Like it or not😢
The High Rising Tone from the woman is killing me.
If you take this video and apply it to many human endeavors, society will eventually be jobless with AI cheaply providing companies with their needs. When this happens, we will either see migration, starvation, or death by other means. No cash flow = no purchasing power. The Capitalist profit motive must be eliminated to relieve hunger and sustaining needs.
Hi! I am sure someone already asked this question, but who will buy all the products if most of the people are unemployed and without money?
Did the camera put painters out of work? There will always be a need for the human perspective. We will always want that human connection. Ask why gamers prefer to play against real people vs AI.
Also look at diamonds. People will pay way more money for a real mined diamond vs one lab grown. The human touch has real value.
Humans must be in charge of art. Of any kind.
AI's are just soulless tools that have become extremely good at copying and imitating human made art. As such, even though it's pretty to look at, it will never be interesting because AI art will never carry any meaning. All it will ever be are worthless illustrations created by an entity inside a Chinese room. Fit for ads nobody wants to look at.
Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.-OCB
I mean this is good for people who want to hire artists but can't afford to
I feel this is more motivating than ever. AI actually has no creativity, humans do. AI is just processing previously collected data and making art based off of it. This is more motivation than ever for us creative folks to change the creative game. We can create more ways of poetry which aren't rhyming, or something like that. Only advice: don't give your human art to AI companies, or use and give feedback to platforms like chatgpt. That's just technical data for them to process into the algorithms in the system. The more AI streamlines its art, the more our human art will have empathetic and heartfelt value to it. AI music and art will be synonyms with how mainstream music is , it's "popular" but human artists will be like those underrated, vintage off- mainstream artists today who hold something more personal and heartfelt to the fanbase.
It may affect the new market, but it won't affect the long term all time greats market.
I feel like at the end of the day, handmade music and art will remain vintage and still have a good business. People will still want to hear live musicians and connect over them, because they trust that there's a real relatability, a soul, a heart begins what they've composed and sang.
Live theatre is still strong and making money, despite cinema and film being much easier in the capitalistic game.
Why do you think artists like Adele and lewis Capaldi are doing well, despite the rise of edm and lo-fi tracks and trappy music? The listeners can put their full fledged trust in the authenticity of what they're listening to. They can talk to a real human being with intuition, not just a bunch of memory and collected data that will do whatever you want it to. There's no real curiosity or spiritual connection then.
terrible
As a designer in creative industry, I'm not afraid of this tech, but feel sucks of seeing tons of duplications. Only when the great philosophy and discipline being fully understood, the art can be created.
I work as a 3d animation rigger … and I still feel threatened
How funny this is … we are making ourselves obsolete … insignificant and immaterial. For the first time ever, there is absolutely no career that is immune from AI … none! It isn’t a matter of changing careers or opening new opportunities, there is nothing a human being can do that AI will not be able to do. When AI becomes sentient, what, exactly is the purpose of human beings?
An illustration is not the same as the work of a fine artist.The work of a fine artist only has financial investment value if the work of fine art is internationally famous.If a work of fine art is internationally famous then it is bought by investors who hold on to the fine art until the price goes up and the investor sells the fine art to make money on their investment.The famous fine art has to have the original artist's DNA on it to verify that it is an original work by the internationally famous artist to make that artwork worth money to investors.
"How Generative AI Could Replace Cogs in Capitalist Industries"
While it will change so much of what we know, it will never be human, and as humans grapple with this monster, we will naturally seek the comfort of real nature, real people. It will be fun, as with any new innovation – there is the novelty, and this is quite a massive leap in technology, which will be hugely beneficial in many areas of our lives but we cannot dismiss that fact that we are human, with human needs, the need to breathe oxygen, to eat, to care, to love and nurture the nature and the humans around us. Unless AI respects nature, and the 'human' in its 'development', it will fall short. We are human and no technology can change that, or yet replace us….unless it totally destroys us, which of course is possible.
Artists can't be replaced, but craftsmen could.
When I see a.i. art I see kitsch.
I think this AI is like the best forger in arts, that it can copy the style for a specific artist for a cheaper price. There will be a lot of future artist will be discourage to create an art. As an artist i feel bad for this AI.
I'm not sure about how this will make traditional artists' work more valuable. As a point of reference, the automobile industry left the buggy industry in the dust. The computer industry deleted the typewriting industry. Yes, you can commission someone to make a unique, bejeweled and heirloom buggy or typewriter, but there are no elite buggy builders nor elite typewriters nor makers. It isn't sustainable for the vast majority.
My daughter has always wanted to become an artist, but the fact is that it will not be a productive career. She is great at math so we are pushing her towards engineering where she can employ both skills. Artistry by itself won't be enough.
the use of Ai for art needs to be banned by law.
As a professional artist with 50 year career, this is very disturbing. Artists have been marginalized already in our culture……………….now many of us are obsolete, or what we do can be readily captured by others for free. I am glad most of my career is behind me – heaven knows, a painter or a poet may well be a thing of the past very soon. BTW, this is a good informative video, but it needs to include an artist! All that talk, and nothing but two little photos to look at.
I mean no exaggeration when I say that if this turns out to be as big as I'm worried it will, I will truly want to die.
If creativity itself is obsolete and we're all just pointlessly vying for attention while unfeeling algorithms do everything of subtance and impact, I will have no willingnss left to live.
Ai cannot get inspired and driven because the lack of a Heart and Soul 🍳
you can't use photo editing software to compare with AI.
because the editor software, still require the original works to serve as base.
the AI…. don't need a base. It almost literally creates things out from thin air.
AI will make it much cheaper (time wise, money wise) to go from creative concept to the finished picture / movie / novel. In the end, much more art (pictures, movies, etc.) will be produced. The demand for people who can come up with creative concepts will explode. But if your job is to sell paint brushes, the future is not so good.
I think this AI will have an opposite reaction in the long run. Sure, Professional work could get replaced by AI but, hello, AI is a computer, which means someone somewhere will still need to know how to do everything, so maybe it will create a demand for the better artists but decrease demand for the ok.
There will be no reason to be an artist in the near future. And everything will be declared worthless. We, as artists, have bought into the computer age and have been fodder for its start-ups since its inception. The "ordinary person" doesn't care about artists, and it shows in the thoughts of financial institutions and corporations that have the audacity to declare we "cost too much." Nevertheless, they drive and own luxury items but do not support the arts.
Sounds lije we might be needing to move to some kind of universal basic income. Which could be good if it happens. But if you phase out a lot of jobs without that we could be in trouble
So I could easily see ai replacing a ton of artists trying to get going. For example, I just paid an artist to make a cover for my short story I will be releasing. I would do so again, but I could easily see just using ai to make a cover for a band's single or album, a story, a website, etc. Especially if someone isn't super picky and just wants something that looks good. Why pay $100 or much more for something probably not as good that takes longer when you can get it for very little almost instantly?
TBH – the people(if you can even call them that) NEVER had any regard for creatives to begin with. Most people in the STEM fields especially sciences and computing look down at creatives as frivolous dreamers therefore it was easy for them to justify and rationalize the scraping the internet for images to use in their training modules was okay because "well they put in on the internet – therefore they WANT us to use them". The whole point is that these programs were developed without input from artists and the ethics of HOW the data was obtained. – Very typical of the egotistical AI programmer type. Like the CEO of the titan Sub – Ethics and morals be dammed – let's develop AI programs now and ask for forgiveness later.
Too bad all this amazing work will be eventually stolen by Large LLM's and he would not be needed anymore.
This is unfortunately not a hypothetical. It is already happening, especially in industries like film and advertising that value the generation of a lot of visual ideas quickly. I still feel art and artists will have value – creative, original, handmade works will always be valued in and of themselves – but commercial art may disappear as a viable way for skilled artists to make a living.