5 ms·

What did photographers start doing when Photoshop was released? They started using Photoshop.

by jboy55 3y ago

bigyikes 3y ago
The analogy doesn’t hold and this comment won’t age well. Photoshop doesn’t take photographs, so of course it hasn’t displaced photographers. It replaced the “shop” but the “photo” was up to the artist. The irony is, Photoshop can generate photos now, and when it gets better, it actually will displace photographers.
- jboy55 3y ago
  Its just going to become self aware and start spitting out photographs? Every scenic view, every building, every proper noun in the world has already been photographed and is available online. Photographer as "capturer of things" has long been dead, and its corpse lies next to the 'realist painters' of the 1800s before the dawn of the photograph and the airbrush artists of the 50s, 60s and 70s. However, my newborn hasn't, hot-celebrity's wardrobe last night outside the club hasn't, the winning goal of the Leaf's game hasn't, AI can't create photos of those. And the conceptual artistic reaction to today's political climate can't, so instead of that artist taking Campbell Soup Cans and silkscreening its logo as prints, or placing the text, "Your Body is a Battle Ground" over two found stock photos of women, or perhaps an artist hiring craftspeople to create realistic sexual explicit sculptures of them having sex with an Italian porn star; an artist is just now going to ask AI to create what they are thinking as a photo, or as a 3D model. Its going to change nothing, but be a new tool, that makes it a bit easier to create art than it has been in the last 120 years, when "Craft" no longer was defacto "Art".
- butlike 3y ago
  In the same way other photographers taking pictures have displaced each other throughout history?
spaceman_2020 3y ago
Except this is the first time we have a new "generalist" technology. When Photoshop was released, it didn't reduce employment opportunities for writers, coders, 3D designers, etc. We're in truly unprecedented territory and don't really have an historical analogue to learn from.
- astrange 3y ago
  Productivity enhancements increases employment. Saying they'd decrease them goes against all empirical evidence. You might as well be worried the invention of the C compiler hurt jobs for assembly programmers.
- drubio 3y ago
  Exactly And I actually thought photographers were extinct a long time ago by every human holding a cellphone (little to no need to know about lens apertures, lighting/shadows to take a picture). Its probably been a decade since I've seen anyone hauling around photograph equipment at an event. I guess some photographers still get paid good money, but they're surely multiples less than there were 10-20 years ago. The NLP (Natural Language) is the killer part of the equation for these new AI tools. Simple as knowing English or any other natural language, to output an image, an app or whatever. And it's going to be just like cellphone cameras and photographers, the results are going to get 'good enough' that its going to eat into many professions.
- kart23 3y ago
  Hmmm... People probably said the same exact thing about taxi drivers and really anyone who drives for a living when waymo demo'd self driving cars 10 years ago.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Except this is the first time we have a new "generalist" technology. When Photoshop was released, it didn't reduce employment opportunities for writers, coders, 3D designers, etc. Computing has always been a generalist technology, and every improvement in software development specifically has impacted all the fields for which automation could be deployed, expanded the set of fields in which automation could economically be deployed, and eliminated some of the existing work that software developers do. And every one one of them has had the effect of increasing employment in tech involved in doing automation by doing that. (And increased employment of non-developers in many automated fields, by expanding, as it does for automation, the applications for which the field is economically viable more than it reduces the human effort required for each unit of work.)
butlike 3y ago
Exactly. When the train really gets rolling, us humans shouldn't eschew the value of being able to interact with the intelligences. For such quaint problems we'll have, it probably costs close to 0 effort to answer a question or two. I'm picturing something like as an intreraction I'd like to have: "Hey, do you mind listening to this song I made? I want to play it live, but am curious if there's any spots with frequencies that will be downright dangerous when played live at 100-110dB. I'm also curious if there's any spots that traditionally have been HATED by audiences, that I'm not aware of." "Yeah, the song's pretty good! You do a weird thing in the middle with an A7 chord. It might not go over the best, but it's your call. The waves at 21k Hz need to go though. Those WILL damage someones ears." "Ok, thanks a lot. By the way, if you need anything from me; just ask."

What did photographers start doing when Photoshop was released? They started using Photoshop.

by jboy55 3y ago

What did photographers start doing when Photoshop was released? They started using Photoshop.

The analogy doesn’t hold and this comment won’t age well. Photoshop doesn’t take photographs, so of course it hasn’t displaced photographers. It replaced the “shop” but the “photo” was up to the artist. The irony is, Photoshop can generate photos now, and when it gets better, it actually will displace photographers.

jboy55 3y ago
Its just going to become self aware and start spitting out photographs? Every scenic view, every building, every proper noun in the world has already been photographed and is available online. Photographer as "capturer of things" has long been dead, and its corpse lies next to the 'realist painters' of the 1800s before the dawn of the photograph and the airbrush artists of the 50s, 60s and 70s. However, my newborn hasn't, hot-celebrity's wardrobe last night outside the club hasn't, the winning goal of the Leaf's game hasn't, AI can't create photos of those. And the conceptual artistic reaction to today's political climate can't, so instead of that artist taking Campbell Soup Cans and silkscreening its logo as prints, or placing the text, "Your Body is a Battle Ground" over two found stock photos of women, or perhaps an artist hiring craftspeople to create realistic sexual explicit sculptures of them having sex with an Italian porn star; an artist is just now going to ask AI to create what they are thinking as a photo, or as a 3D model. Its going to change nothing, but be a new tool, that makes it a bit easier to create art than it has been in the last 120 years, when "Craft" no longer was defacto "Art".
butlike 3y ago
In the same way other photographers taking pictures have displaced each other throughout history?

spaceman_2020 3y ago

Except this is the first time we have a new "generalist" technology. When Photoshop was released, it didn't reduce employment opportunities for writers, coders, 3D designers, etc. We're in truly unprecedented territory and don't really have an historical analogue to learn from.

astrange 3y ago
Productivity enhancements increases employment. Saying they'd decrease them goes against all empirical evidence. You might as well be worried the invention of the C compiler hurt jobs for assembly programmers.
drubio 3y ago
Exactly And I actually thought photographers were extinct a long time ago by every human holding a cellphone (little to no need to know about lens apertures, lighting/shadows to take a picture). Its probably been a decade since I've seen anyone hauling around photograph equipment at an event. I guess some photographers still get paid good money, but they're surely multiples less than there were 10-20 years ago. The NLP (Natural Language) is the killer part of the equation for these new AI tools. Simple as knowing English or any other natural language, to output an image, an app or whatever. And it's going to be just like cellphone cameras and photographers, the results are going to get 'good enough' that its going to eat into many professions.
kart23 3y ago
Hmmm... People probably said the same exact thing about taxi drivers and really anyone who drives for a living when waymo demo'd self driving cars 10 years ago.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Except this is the first time we have a new "generalist" technology. When Photoshop was released, it didn't reduce employment opportunities for writers, coders, 3D designers, etc. Computing has always been a generalist technology, and every improvement in software development specifically has impacted all the fields for which automation could be deployed, expanded the set of fields in which automation could economically be deployed, and eliminated some of the existing work that software developers do. And every one one of them has had the effect of increasing employment in tech involved in doing automation by doing that. (And increased employment of non-developers in many automated fields, by expanding, as it does for automation, the applications for which the field is economically viable more than it reduces the human effort required for each unit of work.)

butlike 3y ago

Exactly. When the train really gets rolling, us humans shouldn't eschew the value of being able to interact with the intelligences. For such quaint problems we'll have, it probably costs close to 0 effort to answer a question or two. I'm picturing something like as an intreraction I'd like to have: "Hey, do you mind listening to this song I made? I want to play it live, but am curious if there's any spots with frequencies that will be downright dangerous when played live at 100-110dB. I'm also curious if there's any spots that traditionally have been HATED by audiences, that I'm not aware of." "Yeah, the song's pretty good! You do a weird thing in the middle with an A7 chord. It might not go over the best, but it's your call. The waves at 21k Hz need to go though. Those WILL damage someones ears." "Ok, thanks a lot. By the way, if you need anything from me; just ask."