I could see it slowly approaching the open source model - you do it because you care, and maybe some people will donate to you because they want to see your work continue. You can also say you've done it, so if you're a prolific artist it would probably look good.
Also, I feel like the main reason artists have a beef with AI right now is mostly because lots of their published works were used without permission to train models. I think if instead SD/Midjourney et al had used open datasets curated in the way TaylorAlexander described, there would be a lot less pushback, because everyone would know the models were trained with consent of the underlying artists responsible for the training data's existence.
There is still the concern of automation eliminating demand for work done by humans, but I have a hunch that in the long term, artists will embrace these tools in the same way that's been done with Photoshop and every other digital tool. It still might be very different, i.e. AI is much more powerful/enabling than Photoshop, but I'm not sure that'll change the outcome.
> I have a hunch that in the long term, artists will embrace these tools in the same way that's been done with Photoshop and every other digital tool.
I think artists will too, but so will everyone else - including many who wouldn't have the skills to create the art they want without AI and who would have had to hire an artist. Photoshop did this is a small extent, but it is possible that AI will meet most people's needs in most situations. As someone with little ability to draw or paint I'm excited for that future personally, but I can't blame professional artists for being nervous. That their own artwork is being used to train their replacement is just rubbing salt into their wounds.
Right now, AI is putting out a lot of substandard work, and artists may find themselves employed just to fix the quirks of AI output, but I doubt they'll find that fulfilling. Eventually AI art may become so homogenized, derivative, and censored that it won't satisfy clients and their customers and if that happens demand for real artists will improve, but I think things could get really difficult for many professional artists in the meantime and I don't think many will be willing to offer up their art for AI the same way most people wouldn't offer to weave rope or sharpen axes for their executioner.
I personally find this incredibly hard to believe. The further you go down the path of learning an art (say painting, photography, or sculpting), the more you realize it's not just technique - it's a way of thinking, seeing, and organizing an image in a way that viewers can understand it.
AI images can copy "composition rules," but without an understanding of what the "artist" is trying to achieve, it can only guess. And the artist themself, if untrained in art, does not know what they are trying to achieve.
If you haven't read "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain," it may help to get across exactly what I mean. Most non-artists cannot pre-visualize the image they want to create, even if it's the scene directly in front of them.
Also, I feel like the main reason artists have a beef with AI right now is mostly because lots of their published works were used without permission to train models. I think if instead SD/Midjourney et al had used open datasets curated in the way TaylorAlexander described, there would be a lot less pushback, because everyone would know the models were trained with consent of the underlying artists responsible for the training data's existence.
There is still the concern of automation eliminating demand for work done by humans, but I have a hunch that in the long term, artists will embrace these tools in the same way that's been done with Photoshop and every other digital tool. It still might be very different, i.e. AI is much more powerful/enabling than Photoshop, but I'm not sure that'll change the outcome.