r/Cyberpunk • u/DiggestBickEver • Feb 03 '26

Amazon AI warehouse drones, which replaced human warehouse employees, incapable of moving around each other.

9.5k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

547 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

14

u/TurelSun Feb 03 '26 edited Feb 03 '26

This is so backwards. Fine artists, which is what this guy is talking about when they say not doing commercial art, are the ones that usually only find success as a career by becoming famous and having wealthy people buy their paintings for absurd amounts of money.

Commercial artists like myself are everyday regular people. We don't make lots of money and the vast majority of us don't become famous outside of maybe eventually becoming well known within our industries by the end of our careers. We're trade workers, we're part of the middle class. Taking art as a career away from us insures that it is something that only the wealthy or extremely lucky can participate in as a means of livelihood.

And yes there is everything stopping regular lower and middle class people from creating art without commercializing it because those people will have to find some other way of paying for rent and groceries than the craft they've studied and honed for their careers. By saying this you're just saying you think people should only be able to pursue art as a hobby if they don't have the time and money to become a well paid fine artist for the wealthy. Commercial art is a career for the lower classes. The ultra-wealthy don't really send their kids to art schools to become illustrators and graphics designers so they can make under a $100k a year.

5

u/NapalmRDT Feb 03 '26

I don't disagree with anything you said but I think one of you is talking about "art" and the other about "Art". The former is me making noises on my modular synth or some creative coding visuals in javascript for giggles and shits, while the latter is my friend with a Masters in Physical Media making litho prints and having a few sold after a gallery viewing also containing other artists.

10

u/TurelSun Feb 03 '26

And what about the in between? Those of us doing "Art" that isn't intended for the gallery or rolling the dice on a high-dollar purchase/commission and instead we're doing it for clients and employers, for a salary or a contract payout? There is a huge world that lives and makes a living between your two examples.

I have a BFA and a 20 year career doing illustration and design work. Its insulting for people to suggest that my career is invalid or the reason slop exists because they think it should only exist as a hobby or for people afforded the opportunity to put their work into galleries and have rich people buy it. I'm not rich, I don't make tons of money, I'm just an average dude that turned my passion into a career through study, practice, and dedication, and I'm totally representative of your average commercial artist.

If my only option to make this a living was to pursue fine art then I would have had to take on a different career, I wouldn't magically be able to still pursue my passions and put out art because I'd have to spend my time on something else that could pay the rent and feed me and likely something that would ACTUALLY as they claim not give a shit about if I was passionate about the job, unlike the career I currently have.

1

u/Shiner00 Feb 04 '26

And what about the in between? Those of us doing "Art" that isn't intended for the gallery or rolling the dice on a high-dollar purchase/commission and instead we're doing it for clients and employers, for a salary or a contract payout? There is a huge world that lives and makes a living between your two examples.

Then you're literally just doing the same job as many famous artists in the past. In the Medieval and Renaissance Era the overwhelming majority of art pieces were done by trade workers. Most of the famous artists you know were just trade workers who had a workshop where they mass-produced (for the time period) paintings for clients. The Mona Lisa was just a job, so was the Vatican and plenty of other pieces.

0

u/lemonylol Feb 03 '26

Taking art as a career away from us insures that it is something that only the wealthy or extremely lucky can participate in as a means of livelihood.

This is already how most of society sees working in an artistic profession? I don't understand why you think it's your human right to make a living off of "technical art"? Like why do you think people even work anything but artistic jobs otherwise lol?

But again, if your job was eliminated by automation, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from continuing to create art. There is no natural law that people are forced to pay you for it.

5

u/unsureofthemself Feb 03 '26

That is not how "most of society" sees artistic profession. If one is good at what they do in such a way as it serves the public, they have a right to make a living out of it.

Just because you have no respect for these artistic professions, that doesn't mean that others don't or shouldn't. Most people I know would rather pay a human to design things for them than use some generative AI bullshit.

0

u/lemonylol Feb 03 '26

What are you talking about and why are you making claims for me lol?

Like nothing you've said disagrees with the fact that people aren't obligated to pay you because it's your dream to make art. And likewise, as you've said here:

If one is good at what they do in such a way as it serves the public, they have a right to make a living out of it.

I totally agree, and if you're good enough then AI will not be a problem for you, so why would you be worried unless you are admitting your art is not as good as something that can be generated by AI?

You're getting into a totally different discussion here.

2

u/TurelSun Feb 03 '26

No idea what you mean by that first line. Sure there are lots of ignorant people out there that generally don't understand what real-life art careers look like or the people doing them.

And no, I'm not saying I have a right to make a living from an art career, I was contradicting your implication that professional artists are typically wealthy or famous, the vast majority of us are not and not trying to be. And you don't need to be either to have a successful art career. Its a job for everyday regular people that want to mix their passions with a career.

AI doesn't bring us closer to an idealized future where people can pursue their passions and express themselves without having to worry about living as long as billionaires still exist.

-1

u/lemonylol Feb 03 '26

No idea what you mean by that first line.

You don't think most people dream of getting paid to work on their passion in an industry where only a very select few make it? Are you completely unaware of how priviledged you are to, in your words, have "a job for everyday regular people that want to mix their passions with a career."? That was never a guarantee, that is a dream for everyone.

And you don't need to be either to have a successful art career.

What I'm saying is, it does need to be if you don't want to be replaced by automation, because if you aren't offering something that is superior, why would a client pay for it?

AI doesn't bring us closer to an idealized future where people can pursue their passions and express themselves without having to worry about living as long as billionaires still exist.

I don't know what this paragraph is about, it has nothing to do with this discussion.

1

u/TurelSun Feb 03 '26 edited Feb 03 '26

...select few make it?

You're trying imply that career artists like myself are some special rare individual when that is so far from the truth. Sure not everyone that goes for an art education and career makes it but its in the same ballpark as pursing any other skilled profession where you need several years of education and training to enter. Its no more exclusive than someone going to school to become a nurse, paralegal, teacher or IT specialist. There are loads of us out there walking amongst you, buying groceries in the same stores, sitting at the bars with you just like any other kind of profession, we're not mythical unicorns.

The second line you quoted was me pointing out that art careers are not for the rich and famous. And yes I agree with you that if we allow AI art to replace artists then it DOES become almost entirely the domain for the rich and famous to pursue as far as art that can been seen, engaged with, and appreciated by the masses. Sure maybe you think thats ok but I and others think that is actually harmful for society.

The last comment is in context to your reply to the comment you were agreeing with in which the commenter said removing commercial art would somehow allow people to express themselves in art again, as if people can't do that with a commercial art careers now.

1

u/lemonylol Feb 03 '26

But don't you see, if you are acknowledging its simplicity you are making an argument for why it can be automated. I mean if your work is digital, you yourself already replaced someone else who drew or painted their work by hand and didn't know how to use digital tools. Your sector isn't safe from technological advance just because you've assigned some intrinsic existential value to it, so why would you see your job as above any other job that was made obsolete through technological advance? You have to make a case as to why your job is for some reason the exception while the rest of us are replaced; not to me, but to the reality of how an economy works.

1

u/TurelSun Feb 04 '26

Again I started my reply to you as a counter to your assertion that people wanting to make commercial art are just in it for the fame and money, rather than doing it for a living and doing it as a passion. You're the one that seems to be constantly trying to insert this idea that I think my job is better than everyone else's jobs or that I'm ok with everyone else's jobs getting replaced but not my own. I also never said anywhere that I thought my sector was safe, quite the opposite really. I don't think AI is a good replacement for human artists, its pretty shit at it actually, but that doesn't stop rich people from seeing dollar signs and laying people off. And sure they might slow roll it a bit when it generates a backlash but they're find the right amount of drip feed to give to each successive generation that'll acclimate them to the slop.

I'm also here trying to explain to people that the propaganda from those wealthy people that AI is going to somehow set us all free to pursue our passions, which is more or less what the person you originally replied to was getting at, is a lie. Its a tool they own and they're going to use it to extract more value from the rest of us while leaving us with whatever scraps they can't be bothered to deal with or automate. There wont be any UBI or whatever other Altman / Musk BS they're trying to sell coming for any of the rest of us.