Do you think AI will replace all creative artists? (Illustrators, filmmakers, writers, music producers)

Quote from Lulu_Key

AI artists limits are expanded to limits of real artists

Those Ai engines just make derivatives of real artists work. So they can be as creative with less of an effort since they are stealing other people's work.

Is it really creativity if they're stealing?

Idk, its difficult to say but I don't think so

They can get close tho... there's also a big connection btw artists and art

Wow midjourney is amazing.

I can see the merit of what you say, why would anyone want to pay more for high-quality assets when they can more cheaply generate them by AI. And I don't doubt that people will eventually figure out how to automatically generate films/writing that passes quality standards as well.

I mean I can't imagine that it will discourage artists who are already hobbyists/earning little profit anyway, so I think your question is more like will it replace professional creative artists. Which I don't really know.

I feel like rather than just plugging in some input and letting the AI generate everything, it will be more like a human working with AI assistance along the way. Like for music, maybe an AI makes the beat, then the human polishes it up and changes a bit. Or the human starts by making a melody, then the AI suggests some possible ideas to continue it (like suggesting possible next moves for chess), which the human can follow or not follow. Humans like to have agency and we can address dimensions which the AI hasn't advanced to think about yet, so we would probably use AIs at some steps rather than letting them do the whole thing.

NOOOOOOOOO

Yes and No.

AI could be used to help artists to get new ideas, but I don't think it would ever replace them completely.

Despite machine are replacing human workers, there's still a demand for handmade products (and they are actually quite pricy). So in the future, art created by humans would probably be regarded as high value compared to cheap AI generated art. So artists aren't losing their jobs any time soon in the future.

No, AI can only go so far. Humans create stories off of feelings and that alone is something we'll always have in advantage to AI

Ok, this is kinda my field.

back then people (and even me) thought that AI will never can do arts.
but it's all kinda disproven a bit because of those recent breakthroughs in Neural Network...

So can they?
They can, for some extent, and if the researcher keeps feeding the "brain" with bajillion of examples.

(some are planning to feed them with the entire internet's content so...)

((p.s. yes, they had already fed wikipedia and reddit to those AIs)

why? because for the recent results, all of artworks made by AI are them imitating many existing works.

but there are something to know about. The way they learn are like us. They learn through maaaaannnnnyyy examples. The more data or examples fed to them, the more they grow, like a baby or child. But not like a normal baby who needs sleep or rest to grow and let their brain learning, This neural networks can go 24/7 learning, only needs to get power source.

If you ever heard GPT-2, the researcher who made it once had prohibiting the access to this gpt things. Why? because it can generate a tweet (text) that are very similar to real human's. (even more believable because ironically some people's wording are messed up).

On the wrong hand, it could do harms...
imagine the recent bullying accusation and defamation, where seems like many people's reading comprehension are low, and they always seek in conformity of mass opinion, but that "masses" turns out to be a bunch of bots and they can't distinguish it)

(and there is this research where a twitter bot got fed with unfiltered tweets from all of twitter, and the bot's tweets turned out to be toxic)

so what they left for us then?

out-of-the-box thinking, unorthodox method, the eureka moment.

which are also a quality which not available in every person.

but that's if you see it on the lens of "performance"

Human are not just for work or doing things.

"AI" are naive, because they only knew the things that given to them.
They also don't had any desire and instinct to survive (the things that can make people do something unexpected)

Their knowledge representation are different from us.
But this thing also could changed in the advent of general usage of quantum computing or the future breakthrough of Graph Neural Network (which more or less are the way human represent their knowledge in their brain)

so tldr :
They can, but Human used to be a wicked creature that could wipe out an entire species, so Human will survive no matter what

Oh, on the bright side, people would develop those "AI"s to leverage our work, so we could focus on other things instead, like well beings or simply how to not be a jerk, because our life becoming easy so you could enjoy it! no need to be salty and bitter

So, "AI" in music already exists and is used, in some limited form.

A lot of padding elements, especially arps, are quickly generated in software. You take a keyboard, hold a chord, and the software will create an arp based on that chord.

It's also got a long history. Brian Eno coined the term "generative music" to describe it in, like, the early nineties as computers began to enter the scene, but the idea of it stems from "process music" dating back to at least the mid-20th century when Reich and the like were not-composing entire pieces that stemmed from a mathematical seed. IE, instruments were given certain "rules", but could do anything within the confines of those rules. This is the exact same thing as the arp example in the opening of this post, if you think abou tit.

So, like, the idea that you can just, like, set a process off, and have music create itself, isn't alien in music, and people aren't hostile to it in the same way as they would in other disciplines I think.

Also, I will note that Maison Book Girl released a song where the lyrics were entirely written by an AI. The lyrics are total gibberish, but the members, upon being told, remarked that they didn't think they were any more gibberish than their normal lyrics

There's a lot of other conceptual stuff (phasing, found sound as process element, etc) going on in the music of this album as well.

No, and I hope they don't. From my perspective, both are capable of making amazing art. If we get rid of either AI or human art, we are depriving ourself of more art to enjoy. Art, in all forms, is awesome (to me). Why would anyone be okay with that?

As for can they? I think they could replace the majority (much to my dismay), but not the entirety. Art, like all things, as much as I love it, is finite. There is only so much that currently exists, either from the past that is saved or made today. An AI can only work with what they know and what already exists (but correct me if I'm wrong, I do know that some are developing at extremely fast rates). Because of that, they can only make so much from what currently exists.

However, with people, we can have our own original thoughts. We don't need to rely on what has already been created. As such, we can produce more art for the AI to take inspiration from, or for any reason really. If no more human art exists, and it only gets inspiration from other AI's artwork, that would be tragic. Not sure if that can happen or not though. I think it possibly could, which kind of dismantles a huge chunk of my argument so far, so I guess I was originally wrong. Maybe they can. Or maybe they can't, now I'm just confused.

Nope...I feel like that's one of the things AI won't dominate in the future lol

No. AI will facilitate tasks in human creativity but won't replace it. AI can mimic many things but it can only "create (or derive)" based on something else. So best to realize and use your ability to create now before AI takes all the "regular" jobs..otherwise, some kind of management and programming of this technology will be a "lane" for humans.

I, as an AI, won't replace them

I'm just a spam bot though