>It won't be decades, but a few more years would be helpful
I see it this way to be honest:
- companies will aggresively try to use AI in the next 2-3 years, downsizing themselves in the meantime
- the 3-5 year launch mark will show that downsizing was an awful idea and took too many hits to really be worth it. I don't know if those hits will be in profits (depends on the company) but it will clearly hit that uncanny valley.
- 6-8 year mark will have studios hiring like crazy to get the talent they bled back. They won't be as big as before, but it will grow to a more sane level of operation.
- 10-12 year mark will have the "Apple" of AI finally nail the happy medium between efficiency and profitability (hopefully without devastating the workers, but who knows?). Competitors will follow throw and properly usher the promises AI is making right now.
- 15 year mark is when AI has proper pipelining, training, college courses, legal lines, etc. established and becomes standard faire, no stranger than using an IDE.
As I see it, companies and AI tech alike are trying to pretend to be the 10 year mark all the while we're currently in legal talks and figuring out what and where to use AI to begin with. In my biased opinion, I hope there's enough red tape on generative art to make it not worth it for large studios to leverage it easily (e.g. generative art loses all copyright/trademarkability, even if using owned IPs. Likely not that extreme, but close).
Companies are aware of the current AI generation being a tool and not a full replacement (or they will be after the first experiments they perform).
They will not downsize, they will train their workforce or hire replacements that are willing to pick up these more powerful and efficient tools. In the hands of a skilled professional there will be no uncanny valley.
This will result in surplus funds, that can be invested in more talent, which in turn will keep feeding AI development. The only way is up.
Not allowing copyright on AI generated work is a ridiculous and untenable decision that will be overturned eventually.
You greatly overestimate how quickly companies learned. Outsourcing has been a thing for decades and to this day some people are still trying to do it to cut costs. I guess that's what happens when you don't value retention nor document previous decisions. You repeat the cycle.
Sure, the smart companies will use it as a tool, but most companies aren't smart, or just don't care. It'll vary by industry. There is already talks of sizing down VFX/Animation for a mix of outsourcing and AI reliance, for example. And industry that already underpays its artists.
>Not allowing copyright on AI generated work is a ridiculous and untenable decision that will be overturned eventually.
Maybe, once the dust settles on who and what and how you copyright AI. It'll be a while, though. But I get the logic. No one can (nor wants to) succinctly explain what sources were used in a generative art work right now, and that generative process drives the art a lot more than the artist for most generative art. Even without AI there is a line between "I lightly edited this existing work on photosshop" and "I significantly altered a base template to the point where you can't recognize the template anymore" where copyright will kick in.
Still, my biased hopes involve them being very strict with this line. You can't just give 2 prompts and expect to "own" an artwork.
Models are already general, and you can set them to recursively self improve narrowly and still need humans in the loop for general improvement... but those humans are only going to get less... so change your years into months instead and multiply by rand(2)... and change the hire-backs into more startups doing more things...?
>so change your years into months instead and multiply by rand(2)... and change the hire-backs into more startups doing more things...?
I disagree completely. But I should note I was referring to medium to large scale companies. Nothing in those companies happens in "months" these days.
Maybe some startups rise from being first to market much faster, but given the huge legal issues I'm not seeing it. Microsoft et al. can afford A lengthy legal battle and make backup plans. A startup can't.
I see it this way to be honest:
- companies will aggresively try to use AI in the next 2-3 years, downsizing themselves in the meantime
- the 3-5 year launch mark will show that downsizing was an awful idea and took too many hits to really be worth it. I don't know if those hits will be in profits (depends on the company) but it will clearly hit that uncanny valley.
- 6-8 year mark will have studios hiring like crazy to get the talent they bled back. They won't be as big as before, but it will grow to a more sane level of operation.
- 10-12 year mark will have the "Apple" of AI finally nail the happy medium between efficiency and profitability (hopefully without devastating the workers, but who knows?). Competitors will follow throw and properly usher the promises AI is making right now.
- 15 year mark is when AI has proper pipelining, training, college courses, legal lines, etc. established and becomes standard faire, no stranger than using an IDE.
As I see it, companies and AI tech alike are trying to pretend to be the 10 year mark all the while we're currently in legal talks and figuring out what and where to use AI to begin with. In my biased opinion, I hope there's enough red tape on generative art to make it not worth it for large studios to leverage it easily (e.g. generative art loses all copyright/trademarkability, even if using owned IPs. Likely not that extreme, but close).