@nosleep @why That whole message is basically "they aren't human" while never saying why they need to be human

Show this to a human and they'll go "yup, that's sum art", so, by human-brain-standards, it's art

@applejack @nosleep thats why i think its dangerous, human artists wont be able to compete.

@why @applejack @nosleep Do they have to? The frontier is being moved, but there is still a frontier. You mentionned photography earlier, I'm sure many artists, particularly those whose main output was making realistic portraits, considered photography to be a similar threat. And in the overlap period apparently some artists did cheat by tracing over photographs, which if done insincerely does diminish their art.

But in the end, photography didn't cause the death of visual arts, there's still people impressed by handmade portraits, due to the difficulty of it compared to just snapping a picture, and photography's contribution to art didn't result in the art scene losing its soul. After all, look at these photographs of flowers that make you think of penises.
353693.jpg
10-color-mapplethorpe-flora-900…
10-color-mapplethorpe-flora-900…

@guizzy @nosleep @why You are saying that photography diminished it by some degree. It didn't destroy it because there are things that artists can make that you can't photograph, that's still going to be true with AI, can't make it generate birthday party photos that actually happened or recreate an exact image that an artist has in mind (unless we get brain-implants), but it's still going to affect it greatly

I'd expect it to get applied to mass media way before its applied to this kind of thing. I'd honestly be surprised if pop-songs and crime shows and whatever aren't to some degree AI-generated already

Look at the affect CGI had, people don't even realise it because it's so unimaginably good. Did you know most IKEA catalog images are 100% CGI? Most people don't

Or shit like this https://youtu.be/R1-Ef54uTeU?t=88