With all the fuzz about IA image “stealing” illustrator job, I am curious about how much photography changed the art world in the 19th century.

There was a time where getting a portrait done was a relatively big thing, requiring several days of work for a painter, while you had to stand still for a while so the painter knew what you looked like, and then with photography, all you had to do was to stand still for a few minutes, and you’ll get a picture of you printed on paper the next day.

How did it impact the average painter who was getting paid to paint people once in their lifetime.

  • Brainsploosh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The difference is that we recognise humans and their history, imperfections and many many influences to be part of what makes both the human and expression unique.

    A lot of the discussion doesn’t grant the machine learning models the same inherent worth as humans get, and thus is viewed as a tool trained to replicate others’ work (rather than a creative agent).

    This means that where a student painter is expected to have a desire to express something, and are putting in hard work in practice and paying tutors. Replacing them with a machine without desires or stories to express, by stealing artwork without neither credit or compensation, to then replace the same people who’ve been exploited in creating the tool, seems unfair.