I wish the article quantified the amount of SEO and ‘irrelevant’ content procured in the wild—- it’s a large number but also a dark art for creators to produce cheaply. The author seems somewhat content with the idea of using AI to generate garbage content, but this essay might underestimate the profits of leveraging existing art to train said AI. It strikes me in the current Writer’s Strike, studios probably have an estimate of how profitable AI could be and aren’t sharing that number.
The essay focuses mainly on prompt-slot-machine-based generative AI but there’s a large suite of work that uses the same research to more directly support the artist. Stuff like in-painting, controlled diffusion, and re-stylizing.. as long as it’s free (compared to more expensive art equipment) it should have a beneficial impact on artists.
The essay focuses mainly on prompt-slot-machine-based generative AI but there’s a large suite of work that uses the same research to more directly support the artist. Stuff like in-painting, controlled diffusion, and re-stylizing.. as long as it’s free (compared to more expensive art equipment) it should have a beneficial impact on artists.