comment: >
  
  Most of these arguments do also apply to humans though:
  
  Ai art can't exist without existing art. It can't make a replica style of the Mona Lisa or of Naruto without the artists actual work.
  
  Nor can human art.  Unless there's some wild wilderness child who has never been influenced by art that's already been created, all art can't exist without existing art.  No human can make a replica style of the Mona Lisa or of Naruto without the artists actual work.
  
  AI art is the same as tracing artwork or taking artwork that isn't under public copyright or commercial use, and mashing UT together to claim something as your own. When humans do it, you will still very likely get in trouble. That is WHY even in the concept of businesses, you have to use photos and artworks with proper licensing or else risk being sued. 
  
  It is not the same as tracing artwork.  The word "tracing" cannot reasonably be applied to what AI does.  No human would ever get in trouble for replicating what an AI does.  AI replicates a specific creation process or style, and analyzes existing art to do this.  All human artists do the exact same thing.
context: To /u/DeadpoolMakesMeWet, your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.
  You must respond substantively within 3 hours of posting, as per Rule E. >
  
  
  art is not supposed to be a full fledged job (except animation).
  
  Graphic design, printmaking, art teachers, muralists, and way more probably want to have a word with your right now. Also comic book artists- you literally have Deadpool in your name?
  And where are we drawing the line? Do you just hate illustrative digital art? Because script writing for shows/movies/games and writing books is art- with your attitude, AI text generators will take those over, too. Set designers, coordinators, stylists and clothing designers... Where are we ending the line of "art," and why do you think so lowly of it? >
  
  Well your logic about why art is not a job doesn't really make any sense. People obviously DO make a living off it and are not in poverty lol >
  
  
  art is not supposed to be a full fledged job (except animation).
  
  You sure about that? My mom has had a full time job as an artist for decades. Along with many others in her art circle. It’s their literal job to produce and sell paintings. >
  
  What? What does this have to do with my reply? >
  
  There are plenty of arguments in favor of AI art, but 'you aren't supposed to be making a living off of art' is absolutely not one. People have been making a living off of art for hundreds of years. Why are you suddenly the arbiter of what jobs are 'supposed to be' a full time job? >
  
  Art is a lot of people's real career and always has been. >
  
  I think that if people cannot adapt, they shall change their job. Survival of the fittest, as Darwin bequeathed. >
  
  That's a deeply flawed understanding of Darwin. Social Darwinism is pretty much only used by people who want to defend terrible things >
  
  How is this Social Darwinism? Call it however you want, but we cannot stop the progress just to "save jobs". And I am saying this as a person whose job may be next on the line of replacement. >
  
  It's social darwinism because you literally invoked darwinism to defend the idea of taking away peoples means of survival. You're applying Darwinism to social structures. 
  I haven't said anything about stopping progress. I'm just pointing out that art isn't, and never has been "supposed to be a side thing" or whatever OP said >
  
  
  Art is a quick way to get $15 for some commissions. If you’re living off of that then you must be in poverty.
  
  Uhhh... most artists who work on commission charge far more than $15. But that's kind of beside the point. AI art isn't just destabilizing the art industry, it poses a far more philosophical threat. 
  If you look at utopian visions of a post scarcity future, what do they have people doing? It's not just constant orgies and drug-fueled consumption. That's Brave New World, and Brave New World was dystopian. Idealized visions of the future have humans dedicating their efforts to self-cultivation, building up their own knowledge and skill for its own sake. They write and paint and explore the world around them, while machines handle the toil of production.
  AI "art" reverses that, taking the very human process of creation out of human hands and leaving menial labor to people. It's the promise of automation, but wholly inverted. Now people who would choose to dedicate themselves to the arts have less room to make a living while doing so. 
  It's not the future I want to be living in. >
  
  Wait wha? It's just a step into that post scarcity world you described earlier.
  First we automated farms (to a degree). Then we automated factories (to a degree). Now we're automating art. Sooner or later we're going to automate every service and product. Including servicing them. 
  Your argument assumes that AI art is the last thing that AI takes over. Where in reality it's probably one of many. 
  I'm not sure what a true post scarcity world looks like. We probably won't be there for several 100 years. But going there I know what kind of jobs will become more standard. It's already happening to a degree. Entertainment. Back when our per capita GDP was less than $1000 (inflation adjusted) societies were too poor to have onlyfans models, twitch streamers, youtubers and all that. In about 100 years that is what damn near everyone will be doing. Some sort of entertainment. >
  
  
  Your argument assumes that AI art is the last thing that AI takes over. 
  
  No. I'm saying that art should be the last thing we even think of asking AI to take over. It's prescriptive, not predictive. >
  
  In a post scarcity context this doesnt make any of sense to me. The existance of ai art in no way undermines the ability to create art yourselfe.
  In the current enviorment it maybe makes more sense, where artists stuggle for survival. I would argue, that we should solve that issue in a way that does not limit usage or devlopement of ai. >
  
  Replacing jobs isn't the issue. Tech can and will replace every job if the owner of said company sees fit.
  The problem with AI is om the concept of copyright and "fair use". The ethics behind artifical intelligence creating works for other people to sell using the hardworking of others in non-transformative ways.
  Ai art can't exist without existing art. It can't make a replica style of the Mona Lisa or of Naruto without the artists actual work. When a human does it, they still have to put in the work to learn the style and even then, people can get close, but not exact. There will be small things that separates their recreation from that of the actual artist. It's not the same for AI.
  Easiest way to put the break down of the panic is this:
  1.) AI art is the same as tracing artwork or taking artwork that isn't under public copyright or commercial use, and mashing UT together to claim something as your own. When humans do it, you will still very likely get in trouble. That is WHY even in the concept of businesses, you have to use photos and artworks with proper licensing or else risk being sued. 
  2.) People actually don't care if AI art is used. They care if it's regulated especially because ut's so new right now. Copyright laws should be updated to include AI art and AI databases should only be given access to commercial use and personally owned images for the time being, which isn't hard to do because a lot of sites, Google included, actually have search filters that allow you to list images with a specific license only if you want. 
  Art is, by the way, a job regardless of what you think. Anything can be a job and art makes up 100% of the entertainment industry and your consumption. Artists gave you social media apps like Reddit with notable logos and characters. They are responsible half the time for app coding and web coding as well as design and layout (classes are taught together). Artists make up the costume design, character design, album covers, movie covers, location design, storytelling, book covers, billboards, posters, fanart, etc. For anything from games to films, tv shows, music, and books. Architects go to school for both studio art and mathematics to get their degree. 
  Artist jobs are like Chefs, Mechanics, Fashion Designers, Bakers, Gardening businesses, etc. They are jobs that anyone can do because they do stem from hobbies unlike being a doctor or a pilot in which you for sure need a degree to even practice. They are things that anyone can do and taking classes help improve skill, and careers can be made out of them nonetheless.
  Anyone can be an artist whether by theft, AI, or with crappy art. But only those with worked on skill, understanding of storytelling and design, and creativity will be accepted by businesses who need that assistance. That's actually another important key here too.
  Most people know if you're using AI art and while it may be fine for personal use, a lot of people feel negatively about it enough for it to ever become something worthy to make money off of.
  Likewise the largest companies right now wouldn't hire you because you could use AI to make art nor in the future. A lot of businesses and gaming companies such as Disney, DreamWorks, and Rockstar build their own in-house engines and AI like software because it works with their methods in formulas. Likewise, they still need people who can supply those programs with skill and in-house designs. Pictures from Google and coding from Github won't suffice. There is no worry about a possible loss of work due to AI.
  It's merely just an ethics issue that sadly, is based in opinion if you yourself have a different idea of what is ethically okay in life.