Tanglemix t1_j1x6y5e wrote on December 28, 2022 at 1:41 AM

There will be no qualitative differences.

But are quality and value the same thing?

I saw a post from an author who was worried that he might be sold cover art by someone using an AI art generator posing as a Human artist.

What worried him was not that the quality of the AI image would be worse, but that it would be impossible for him to tell the difference, leading to a scenario in which he was tricked into paying more than he should for the work.

What's noteworthy about this post is the instinctive seperation being made here between the quality of the image and the value of that image.

In his mind the AI generated image had far less value than one made by a human, even though both may be of equal quality- the reason being-I assume- that the AI image required little time and effort to make when compared to a human made image.

So humans seem to allocate value to a thing not only based on it's quality but also on the degree of cost and effort required in it's creation- AI Art is seen- rightly or wrongly- as being a cheap low effort activity , and as a result the products of AI art are likely to be seen as having low value no matter how well executed they may be.

How this perception of AI Art as having low value will impact on it's adoption as a commercial solution is not yet clear. In some contexts it may not matter at all, while in others it may matter a lot.

The potential danger for companies using AI Art is that the message it sends to their consumers may be a negative one- ' In this product we have used the lowest value art available in order to save costs'

So here's the thing; If the main reason you are using Art in your product is to enhance it's perceived value in the eyes of your customers, it makes no sense to use a form of Art that those customers may see as having low value- you end up doing the opposite of what you intended. And in a world where anyone can create AI Art in a few minutes what value will we place on Artworks created using an AI?

One ironic consequence of AI Art may be that some companies not only avoid using it but make a point of the fact that they only use human made art, enhancing the status of human artists as a source of high value as well as high quality artworks.

The very things that make AI Art so attractive from a production point of view- it's fast and it's cheap- may be toxic from a sales perspective if- by using it- you convey the impression that you neither respect or value your own customers.

thetwitchy1 OP t1_j1x82ay wrote on December 28, 2022 at 1:49 AM

Luxury is sometimes artificial: diamonds, lobster, fashion… all are luxury because we decided to make them so.

Scarcity drives demand. When something is hard to get, (lobster is a good example, as it is not easy to transport and near impossible to farm away from the ocean) it becomes more desirable by the nature of its’ scarcity.

When a pretty image can be made by anyone at a computer with a few keystrokes, the value of ‘pretty’ goes down, while the value of ‘evocative’ or ‘communicative’ goes up… and these are things that, while a human can create in art almost instinctively, can only be made by AI art when a human spends significant time poring through the results and selecting high value images.

This may be the first example of “post scarcity” that we as humans have to deal with, and figuring out how to do that is going to be a good roadmap for the future… or we can watch just how badly we screw it up.

Thundergawker t1_j1zm5jk wrote on December 28, 2022 at 4:15 PM

This. AI art might well be the best thing to happen for artists.

Also it's really good for reference, I had a commission recently and instead of wasting my energy looking for good reference on Google, I just prompted midjourney, and in seconds I had the data I need to visualize what i wanted to make in my minds eye.

Tanglemix t1_j26azd1 wrote on December 29, 2022 at 11:38 PM

Could you see a scenario in which your clients simply bypassed you and used Midjourney themselves to create the image they wanted?

I ask because this idea seems to be almost an article of faith among many AI Art enthusiasts- they are convinced that AI art in the near future will eliminate the role of the human artist in most commercial contexts.

Personaly I don't find this idea credible for a number of reasons- not the least of which is the fact that very often people who commission art don't really have a clear idea or vision at the start of a project, which is why they hire an artist in the first place.

A commercial artist is not simply a device for rendering images- there is a collaboration involved that current AI image generators lack the ability to provide.

And there is a real problem- at least in my view- with the idea that words and images are fungible- they really are not. Even the most detailed and comprehensive written description of a face is a poor substitute for a simple photograph. No one ever commisioned a portrait by sending the painter a written account of what the subject looked like- because we all understand that the idea of creating art just by talking to your tools is like the idea of playing the piano while wearing mittens- entertaining perhaps, but sadly lacking in the precision required to get the job done.

isthiswhereiputmy t1_j1zmlq9 wrote on December 28, 2022 at 4:18 PM

The value of quality in fine art caps out relatively low. A completely unknown artist would be lucky to sell a painting for more than $10-20K. Above that it's all just name-recognition and hype, more of a social game.

I think we'll be in a strange vein for awhile where artists putting software to work like studio-assistants will gain an advantage over approaches that are more strictly one way or the other.

I agree with your comments about how companies think about this. It's why million dollar sculptures by established artists still appear in spaces around the world.

Tanglemix t1_j267zys wrote on December 29, 2022 at 11:17 PM

I think you are right about fine art- having tried to sell in this market for a long time it's very clear to me that quality, at least in terms of craftsmanship and technique, are completely irrelevant. The perfect proof of this is the trend in some high street galleries to sell the visually illiterate scribblings of celebraties as having some legitimate aesthetic value, when in reality it's simply the 'brand recognition' of the celebrity that is the real and only 'value' being offered for sale. ( The perfect example of this being the famous Cricket player who made his 'Art' by throwing balls covered in paint at a sheet of paper- this is not a made up story. To be fair the balls in question were cricket balls, so there was some kind of obscure link between the marks he made and the skill for which he was actually famous.)

The interesting thing about AI Art is that the opposite situation might occur- you could have images that exhibit a high degree of apparent skill and technique- yet be seen as having almost no value because they were so quickly and easily made.

The analogy here might be the golden leaves of autumn scattered in their millions on the ground- each one is actually unique in it's pattern and even beautiful in it's way, but none are regarded as having an real value.