Anonymous at Tue, 5 Mar 2024 22:02:16 UTC No. 976686

>>976685
why are you allowed to roam freely and shit up this dead board like this? there are like 5 replies a day in here, can't you see that? don't you have anything better to do?

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Mar 2024 22:08:08 UTC No. 976687

>>976685
did not read

cute cat pic tho, mine :3

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Mar 2024 22:17:00 UTC No. 976688

AI has no impact on my job prospects whatsoever

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Mar 2024 22:23:24 UTC No. 976689

>>976685
I'm interested in this topic Op. I have witnessed this glee in several people who are seemingly overjoyed how many artist
are now facing hardships as a result of recent technical developments.

I'm curious to learn what invokes this response in you. I could imagine feeling somewhat the same way if someone I despised like
say some Wallstreet day trader that is profiting out of making the world a objectively worse place was displaced by a machine.
But in the case of artists we are ultimately entertainers who strive to brink value to peoples life.

So what is the cause for this sort of reaction in someone like you Op?
I mean it does bother how many feel this way you express but more than it bothers me I am genuinely curious to the answer.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Mar 2024 22:32:32 UTC No. 976691

>>976689
I hypothesize some of them are just troll/sadist type individuals but I think there is a broader aspect of a defensive mechanism in there.
For many pretending like artistic work didn't have any intellectual value to begin with and could easily be mechanized is one way for people to ward
of the existential dread they themselves must face once this catches up with their own areas of expertise.

Human psychology is just fucked up like that, by marginalizing others you serve to elevate yourself in the social hierarchy.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Mar 2024 22:34:13 UTC No. 976693

>>976685
what do you do for a living?

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Mar 2024 22:51:04 UTC No. 976694

>>976693
he is this guy >>976356 , what do you think he does?......

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Mar 2024 23:26:38 UTC No. 976697

>>976694
It's the jannies who let him do it.

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Mar 2024 00:09:35 UTC No. 976699

>>976685
Bro I'm already set for life due to a game I made from shitty unity asset code framework but with my cool 3d art, not sure why you are being so gleeful because even in the hardest of times any 3d artist will be a more succesful person then (you) huhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Anonymous at Wed, 6 Mar 2024 00:18:37 UTC No. 976700

Jannies are horrible people who are exploiting a slow adult for their own entertainment and also to inconvenience us.
Because jannies hate us in the same way they hate women, because they were born with that extra appendage that makes their figure imperfect.
They've been trying to turn Cris into a lolcow for 10 years and they've failed because it turns out Cris is not even slow enough of funny enough to deliver as a lolcow and so nobody cares.
Growing up their parents didn't care about them because they are chronic failures and so they became jannies to try to acquire some semblance of power and yet still, in the end, nobody cares.
Such is the life of a janny.

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 18:15:17 UTC No. 976845

>>976689
If someone cant do or has failed in doing something, they will celebrate when someone who can, fails.

That said, retard doesnt realize AI hasnt done shit other than weed out the weak willed tweens who wont make it anyway. AI wont replace artists until you can specifically make exactly what you want.

When I can tell AI to make me a specific model, fully textured and rigged, as realistic as I choose... well then my job will be easier.

Only reason to learn any of this is to output your idea in that medium. Absolutely about the destination, not the journey.

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 18:49:21 UTC No. 976851

>>976685
Layoffs of this magnitude only prove that there is an absence of good leadership. Not an absence of demand for your skills.
A good leader would be able to make use of skilled individuals. A poor leader only knows how to make cuts and hop on trends in hopes to be driven toward profit.

The truth of the matter is: the average consumer doesn't care if their entertainment is crafted by man or by AI. So long as whatever they're consuming gives them their serotonin. This might sound like a doomer sentiment but it's not. It's a hopeful one. Because it just goes to show that man made goods are still valuable. You just need someone to lead a pack of artists to create that new show or movie or what have you. And if it resonates with audiences, then it will still turn a good profit.

So again, the layoffs only prove that bad leaders seek to cut costs as much as possible. It will only take a good leader to rally artists to work. With that in mind, all the layoffs could lead to many new studios rise. And with new studios often comes new ideas and innovations.

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 19:03:19 UTC No. 976853

>>976845
>If someone cant do or has failed in doing something, they will celebrate when someone who can, fails.

Certainly failed artists who are envious of those who still follow their creative path are gonna be in there, but it seems a bit too widespread for that
to be the main factor.

>AI wont replace artists until you can specifically make exactly what you want.

Problem is it is already began replacing artists, the mass firing of people doing creative work has already started and is reflected in tens of thousands creative jobs lost
even if we all agree this is premature and that AI currently can't do what people want it to do it's clearly already doing enough for some to start shedding their artists.
There is no sign that this is gonna stall out anytime soon as capabilities are still accelerating.

Everyone knows that the millisecond it's available for next to nothing people will terminate subscription to our expensive services.
Starting to learn this field today you have to go in knowing this will never lead anywhere as far as having money goes because art will be essentially free.

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 19:04:34 UTC No. 976854

>>976845
>Only reason to learn any of this is to output your idea in that medium. Absolutely about the destination, not the journey.

I agree the intrinsic process of art is what is most valuable to us as artist and why one would want to be in this game in the first place.
But that intrinsic value is meaningless to the consumer, they don't care how fun we had making an asset, they just care about having their asset.
In order to physically be able to make art many of us are banking on having compensation for our work in order to afford sustaining ourselves doing so.
Art is rapidly becoming this extravagant leisure activity one can dabble in if you're rich enough to engage in activities that have no economic value.

The window where the journey is available in a way people can afford the ticket to ride is just rapidly closing for a lot of would be artists.
In other cases it will cut peoples journey short where they need to go elsewhere because they can no longer afford to stay the course.

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 19:58:44 UTC No. 976856

>>976853
>the mass firing of people doing creative work has already started
Same already happened in coding because of copilot and chatgpt.
spoiler: They were hired back after management noticed AI sucks.
Copilot is useless unless you already know software engineering and chatgpt got a lobotomy because they can't sustain the compute.
It was suss when it was at the best when it came out, now it's just basically useless.

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 20:26:54 UTC No. 976859

>>976689
NTA, I'm mostly a lurker but I also like this topic. For me, I haven't found much value in entertainment in the past 20-30 years. People have many prospects of becoming entertainers and yet a lot of entertainment is getting less substantial effort for more effort on immediacy. So instead of the content itself being interesting, the reaction to the content is all that's there. It's simplified, flashing lights, jangling keys, or whatever you want to call it. This, plus the added fact that people are celebrating this destruction of many media forms, obsessing over fidelity while lessening the actual artistry is why I'm personally fine with laughing at artists. It's ultimately their own fault for essentially trying to make art into a "wall street day trading" money obsessed equivalent, but somehow more narcissistic.
To me, art should be about an expression of the individual. A lot of people tend to start with that idea, but the further you get into any entertainment industry, the rot of corporations start leaking in, until their vision is all but erased for the sake of some undefined "appeal". This should never have been what artists strived for. The existence of popular, worldwide appealing media isn't an inherent evil, however everybody wishes to abide by the rules set by that expectation. Nobody will try to make anything niche, and if they do they get either lambasted for it, or guilt tripped into changing it. All because the consumers are entitled to everything, even things they don't care about.

It's not entirely an issue with artists of course, but I hope this sets a precedence of creating for creation's sake. I'm tired of things being toned down because the artist is concerned with financial growth. If they really wanted financial stability, it makes no sense to go for art as a career to begin with. It really just feels like nobody does things for fun anymore. Back in the day, people aimed to work high paying jobs or etc, solely to fund their passions.

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Mar 2024 21:09:20 UTC No. 976862

>>976856
>If they really wanted financial stability, it makes no sense to go for art as a career to begin with.
You don't pursue art as a career because you want financial stability. You do it because you want to commit full time to your artistic pursuits, and not have 80% of your time awake dedicated to a wageslaving job. Art can be a hobby for some and that's fine, but for others it's the pursuit of a lifetime.
>It really just feels like nobody does things for fun anymore.
So basically you're proving the others right. You're a coping wagie that is jealous that others get to make a living out of a dream job like art. With the prospect of artists getting laid off you're cheering out of schadenfreude. Get back into your cagie petty wagie.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 10:03:55 UTC No. 976904

I'm learning to 3d for me, so jokes on you. any advice for anything?

ayo at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 10:46:53 UTC No. 976905

nah, I wanna make beautiful stuff. If new technology makes that easier then I shall learn it.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 12:20:28 UTC No. 976910

>>976862
OP trying to put himself into other’s shoes but realized their feet is too big symbolizing how small OP’s brain really is.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Mar 2024 14:19:23 UTC No. 976921

>>976689

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 00:30:22 UTC No. 976970

>>976859
I think that you placing the blame on corporations is the opposite of true. There are no market forces that would lead to commercialized art becoming insincere if insincere art wasn't in demand, even with mass appeal being larger than niche appeal the latter still exists and is regularly extremely well served.
I think that the lack of sincerity in art has much more to do with an anti-corporatist agenda that posits all corporations generating profit as fundamentally evil. Diminishing the appeal of the corporations' output is a certain way to reduce their influence. Niche things aren't attacked because they're different, but because they have appeal, and could therefore be used to consolidate money and power. And if corporations were the judges of the character of entertainment, independent artists and smaller studios that corporations can't exert any power over would find it easy to stay in their niche, but they don't.
The rot has to come from an agent that isn't interested in quality, money, honesty or people's livelihoods. It's probably the communists.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 14:46:14 UTC No. 977013

>>976970
Even if this is ironic, I somewhat understand where you're getting at. I didn't blame corperarions either, note that I said it's not a bad thing for mass appeal media to exist. If there wasn't some kind of simple entryway for people, then it wouldn't let people get the chance to adventure into something they might enjoy on a deeper level.
But it's as >>976862 proves, it probably isn't as exaggerated as something like communism. It's mostly the simple pursuit of money, and that's what mostly gets me confused when people attribute their desire to be businessmen as "committing full time to artistic pursuits". It doesn't help that there hasn't been any piece of media, either made in collaboration nor made individually, that didn't severely diminish in quality over time. The expectation that people are a wellspring of creativity is equally farcical which just leads me to believe it's more marketing speak.
Either way, my point isn't really to lord over superiority to artists or whatever retarded shit people say. Even if things changed it wouldn't stop me from giving a shit about recently produced content. The ideal is simply that I believe when everyone has the tools to be creative without restrictions (like dedicating time into learning the craft) that will hopefully diminish the need for the majority (yes even small time artists) to be so insistent on creating things for the masses and for their wallet. Art should be (financially) worthless, because it inhibits and sacrifices too much in order for it to ever be profitable. The only reason people should want to engage in art is if they want to create, and I'm hoping this will lead to that. If anybody can create, then nobody needs others to create. It leads into just creating for one's self and that should be the ideal people strive for. Not for publishers, not for attention, not for the audience. For example, despite all this AI, that isn't going to stop me from enjoying drawing or modeling, process and all.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 16:19:45 UTC No. 977028

>>976970
>>977013
I did not read a single word you've typed.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 16:49:33 UTC No. 977031

>>977028
no thim, but Why are you replying ?

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Mar 2024 18:21:46 UTC No. 977042

>>976859
You touch on the truth that art is made for economic viability first and creativity second. Social media conditions people to be free laborers and to produce content to feed the technological machine. In turn this makes content conform to digestible sizes (in allowed expressions, length, and format) for the broadest appeal.

And what artist alive yearns to make slop? None, so artmakers become dispassionate toward what they make.

All of this is the result of markets turning art into commodity. The ideas expressed in art are an afterthought, and considered only if the ideas become too extreme and jeopardize the art's value to its market.

Over time society has taught people to make and to eat slop. AI is the culmination of these efforts: Instant visual noise devoid entirely of meaning.

A renaissance of sincerity in art is soon upon us because people will reject AI products just as they're rejecting today's thoughtless media. But this process, too, will take time to unravel; social change occurs gradually but inexorably.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Mar 2024 19:44:08 UTC No. 977200

>>976689
Art should remain a pure hobby, simple as, and should never be created with monetisation in mind
If AI manages to turn art into basic commodity you can obtain in any „flavour” and anytime, real art created as a part of a hobby will remain