Adobe Execs Think Artists Should Embrace AI Or They Won't Succeed
80.lv
Photoshop and Substance 3D developer now openly antagonizes anti-AI creators by doubling down on generative AI.
  • Cryan24@lemmy.worldEnglish
    841·
    2 months ago

    So company with vested interest thinks people should do thing that makes the company money, gotcha

    • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.orgEnglish
      181·
      2 months ago

      Pretty much.

      Every time I’ve heard “[X] should embrace AI or get left behind” it’s being said by someone making or selling AI (or a product they shoehorned AI into).

  • paraphrand@lemmy.worldEnglish
    384·
    2 months ago

    So we downvote here when we disagree with an article? Wouldn’t you wanna upvote it so others see the bullshit Adobe is spouting?

    • ElPussyKangaroo@lemmy.worldEnglish
      142·
      2 months ago

      I had the same confusion a while back… This is just an article… There’s no point in downvoting the post sharing the article…

  • over_clox@lemmy.worldEnglish
    192·
    2 months ago

    Sure, because screw artists with unique talent and style, let’s just have AI crank out the same style crap every day…

    I’m rapidly getting tired of this new AI art era, looks like the same shit every day anymore.

    Where’s the human factor anymore? Where’s the talent, where’s the skill?

    • And009@reddthat.comEnglish
      410·
      2 months ago

      That’s not how we should see it. Digital artists spend a lot of time creating and trying different things. On the other hand we have people with different conditions who have ideas without the skills yo execute anything.

      This allows everyone to do more and quicker, increasing the earning potential. AI is useful as long as it levels out the playing field. It’s the malicious use we need to moderate and like drugs, thats a slippery slope.

      • Pandemanium@lemm.eeEnglish
        71·
        2 months ago

        When I am amazed by a piece of art, it’s because a person was able to conceive of a scene and then use techniques they’ve learned to bring that scene from their mind into reality. I think, “Wow, how did they decide to blend those colors together in such a way, and why? I wonder how hard it is to get that right? How long might it take me to learn the same technique?”

        But when I look at a piece of art made by AI, I think, disappointedly, “Oh, they didn’t. Nobody leaned the technique to paint this, there may not be any feeling behind it, or any point at all, other than ‘it looks good.’” It’s just not impressive.

        And I’m pretty sure that most people could learn how to prompt successfully in a matter of days or weeks. Real artists practice their craft for years, learning and perfecting techniques and often developing their own unique style.

      • socphoenixEnglish
        61·
        2 months ago

        How does it increase earning potential? Best case it would flood the market with shit and result in less income due to either dilution of spending amongst thousands of idiots using “ai” or destroy the need for a market in the first place. If everything is ai why would I pay the “artist” instead of just going to stablediffusion or something similar?

          • socphoenixEnglish
            11·
            2 months ago

            Because phones are still not able to shoot as well as a professional camera, never mind the skills needed to frame or light the scene correctly.

              • moseschrute@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                2 months ago

                I’m predicting it now. There will be either an app or a bot that collects all the photos taken at a wedding by guests and generates “professional” photos of the event. So you won’t need to frame the photos anymore. You will only need enough perspectives to predict what a framed photo would look like.

                I’m against AI replacing human creativity. This is just a prediction. Not saying I want it to happen.

  • EndlessNightmare@reddthat.comEnglish
    11·
    2 months ago

    One can look at art as either being about “the end result” or about the process of human expression. AI can produce the former (of varying quality), but not the latter.

  • Tiger Jerusalem@lemmy.worldEnglish
    134·
    2 months ago

    Hot take here: they’re not wrong. AI speeds up tons of processes that many traditional artists won’t be able to keep up, just like digital painting sped up tons of processes that traditional painting could not keep up.

    This doesn’t mean that traditional art will die. Physical art will surely find it’s niche and it will be sought after by collectors, for example. But in the commercial environment, faster is better and AI will be a factor.

  • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.ccEnglish
    81·
    2 months ago

    I too embrace Adobe Illustrator once but i’m not successful. Cool program though.

    Wait, wrong AI.

    • And009@reddthat.comEnglish
      1·
      2 months ago

      It’s by far my favorite tool. Want to see what AI can actually do and not the crap they are pushing so far

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.worldEnglish
    5·
    2 months ago

    Forget artists! I’ll just get Adobe AI and create the logo I would have paid an artist to make…if I had ever a need for a logo. What else does Adobe do anyways other than logos 😆.

    Goodbye artists, is also saying goodbye Adobe. They gotta thread lightly.