The sell was being able to churn out generated art that captures the artistic vision of the one giving the prompt without going through hours worth of labor creating them. What happened is a lot of users who never lifted a pencil created social media art accounts and spammed their way into someone else's feed.
Given the algorithm favors creators that post at regular intervals using content that's clickbait material, it's not that difficult to imagine how these accounts outpace artists that have to spend hours creating their content with so little pay off for it.
There came a point when some equilibrium was established where the hype died down but the accounts that took advantage of the success were big enough to keep regularly farming some clicks compared to those that started late and faded into obscurity. I mean, people were now used to seeing AI generated images everywhere so now it became less special compared to old school artists that don't do AI art.
There's a reason why some AI artists try so hard to pretend they made something with their own imagination from scratch, because they'll have less potential patrons if people knew their art skills were just propped up by typing prompts through a machine.
It goes back to that natural inclination to avoid purchasing luxury products that lack personal touch. It looks good but it doesn't really have a story or stands on its own soul. That's what I think whenever I see a generated AI image that caught my attention. Once those seconds of amazement fade, you only have an image that's factory made. Compare the same stylized image but created by artists from scratch and they even showed a time lapse video of the process, now you get a finished product, a personality behind it, and a story too.
I don't think AI programs will stop being a thing since the images they churn out become more sophisticated and getting more difficult to tell for an inexperienced eye. But the main market for these programs are artists that try to cater to clients that want products less to do with AI. I know this is oversimplifying things when there are actually patrons or AI art out there.
I just think to myself, "Would I actually buy a luxury item that's supposed to be personalized if it's just done by prompts?" wouldn't it be better if I just used the program and cut off the middle man fat fingering those prompts from the equation?
How about AI written novels that were supposed to be made by real writers as part of the ad? would people really want to slap the "made with AI" notice on their books?
Too many AI products from AI creators but not really a lot of demand for their products unless it's repackaged as organically made.
This post was inspired from socmed browsing under the art category and seeing a coworker use AI to "write" their letters. I imagined the recipient of those letters to also use AI to write a response just to sound formal.
Thanks for your time.
Posted Using INLEO
I think the general consensus over AI remains negative. I see more and more people these days speaking out at how poor things like Google Images and Pinterest now are due to AI running rampant. And whenever a game company does throw out something AI people are quick to make an uproar over it and it gets pulled.
The definitive problem here is the difference between corporate greed and creativity. Consumers like creativity. They like seeing something that gives them an emotional reaction and having a person to attach that to. It's why Magic The Gathering credits its artists on the cards. People want to see the artist and those artists have followings which then serves as marketing for the product itself.
With creativity and effort comes a price. People perceive value based on effort and skill. If there's neither then the consumer feels nothing and perceived value is a rightful 0. Why would the consumer spend their hard-earned money on something that was produced with zero hard-earned skill or effort?
AI thrives because there is demand for efficiency but this efficiency is made taboo because the prominent consumers are the expectant sellers to the end consumers that want nothing they bought is near AI. You can count a lot of art patrons flexing their collection of art not made by generative AI but not a lot of people flexing their AI generated bought art. That's why the only way to thrive for those using generative AI when they want to appeal to the wider audience is burying the fact that they use AI.
Yeah, Activision has been doing that for a while now. It's evident they're using it and people complain, but they just stay silent about it whenever it's mentioned. But I think people are waking up a bit more to their general practices and trying to avoid supporting them. It probably is a matter of time until Hasbro starts pushing it into MTG somehow too.
It's a shame because there are many aspects of AI that could be really useful for society and companies but the main argument for it has been the art side of things for the most part, just showing corporate greed and a lazy, unimaginative population. From cinema to journalism. Naturally people aren't generally supportive of mass corporate layoffs and replacement.
@adamada, I paid out 0.621 HIVE and 0.294 HBD to reward 1 comments in this discussion thread.