The big question is what happens when the human training set for art stops being generated? Will AI art stagnate, or will there still be enough humans making art without financial reward to continue to supply models with better data?
Hopefully humanity has created enough art styles because we might never create new art styles again since there will be no way to fund our best young artists.
There would still be a selection pressure towards better models even if the datasets were completely overtaken by AI-generated images, as there would still be humans in the loop, choosing which AI-generated images (or videos/text/etc) to use for their content, picking the better ones, discarding the not-so-good ones. Thus, the input dataset to the next generation of models would not be the raw output set of the previous generation(s), but rather some manually selected subset of the best outputs of the previous generation(s). However, this seems like it could only provide a pressure for the models to move towards a local maximum, so perhaps there might be interesting opportunities outside of this local maximum.
Humans are still involved its just that they are generating art faster. If more people can create art the human creativity will only increase not decrease.
It’s like programming, easier it is too program the more creative programs become.
Also in my opinion creativity is just combination on two ideas together. These AI tools allow you to combine different concepts together and see how does it looks.
The AI models don’t have access to reality, so insofar as art needs to be motivated from physical reality, it breaks down until they do. For example, if humans were to start modifying their bodies in a novel and counterintuitive way, AI models would never capture that accurately if it’s never really been depicted in the training set.
I think what we need to do is feed the AI generated art into AI and build new models and see what happens!
The issue with articles like the original post is that typically they are written, not by animators or artists, but by data scientists.
This becomes obvious when they approach animation with a lens of realism. In fact, the photograph has not replaced all visual media because artistic expression goes well beyond a facsimile of what we see and experience. The difference between a Degas and a photograph of a ballerina is multifaceted.
Animation is no different, and naturally AI will be a useful tool, but without understanding art in it’s entirety, and without being able to create art oneself, without the aid of a machine will separate the plebs from true artisans.
If AI gets to the point where it can have limitless creativity—then I hate to say it but we’re all fu*ed.
