For example, here's some art from a modified Stable Diffusion model: https://www.reddit.com/gallery/wkd77a
I don't know how you can look at this and think, "ah yes, just some more generic junk."
> here's some art from a modified Stable Diffusion model: https://www.reddit.com/gallery/wkd77a
The "fantasy girl" style of paintings has always looked generic to me (even back when it was painted by human artists). They are cute to look at, for sure. And so is looking at photographs of models, unless it is your friend and you miss her. Otherwise the story just ends there. I think in the end images are just story-telling devices. They are a means to an end. The nice thing of AI art is that it'll inspire more people to realize that. And the same goes with words and representations around us. What's important are not the words and representations, but the story they are telling, which in terms has physiological and emotional ramifications, and may provoke thoughts and feelings and actions, or the change of a habit, a new sentiment, a grain of salt, a breath of fresh air, etc. Those are what the human experience is about. And yet we always tend to focus too much at the finger pointing to the moon. I really hope that's the change AI would bring into this world. More awareness to the moon. And then there will be aspirations and new movements as we restructure soceties.
That said, yes, it's still very impressive.
I think it's totally understandable if you don't care about this kind of art and it losing value, but what you're really saying then is "The art apocalypse will happen and that's good". I share this opinion, but I can also definitely see why working artists don't like it!
Most commercial illustrations (esp commisioned by companies/institutions) are mostly created to evoke a longing for consummerism (eg lifestyle advertisments), and it is often mindless. People's interests are in the feeling they are promised the thing would give them, and often not the thing itself. Or, at worst, as a stress-coping mechanism that has direct and grim consequences. eg America's sugar addiction (which are implanted into the population at young age when they are most vulnerable.)
These are not arts. They are Machiavellian traps for the mind.
Arts, in the simplest defintions, are just things one makes to express a certain feeling/thought/sentiment/etc. A piece of art is good when it can connect/resonate with you. It's a human connection thing. Tech would be an enabler for more novelties. But the story has always been there. A story about mankind.
You seem to have completely missed the point of this discussion:
> ShutterStock should be concerned, but artists and graphic designers don't need to worry. Just another tool.
That's the thing I was disagreeing with, and they're obviously talking about artists in general, including commercial artists, not just ones who are engaged with the platonic ideal of art.
And so are urban consumerism, artistic demands from brands, the arts industries, the defintions of galleries (eg Can an amber wine bar also be an actual gallery? What about a BOBBLEHAUS clothing store in Manhattan? What defines a space for "fine" arts really)... people's thinking will change. I can assure you things gon be very different in the next 10 years.
Some people may get angry about it. But that is how society progresses.
There are two types of people: those who keep still and those who move.
More Stable Diffusion examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32493516
Like, of the millions of working artists out there employed by various companies, what percentage of their output do you think meets this bar of "I wanna hang it up in my living room"?
Maybe AI art won't be able to hit the bar of seriously moving people to feel deep emotions consistently, but what percentage of human-generated art manages to hit that?
There's a huge market of artwork that I don't like, that I would never hang up anywhere.... That's what this technology will compete with.