Humans innovate over time because of our contact with what we call "the real world". That's something which the generative AIs will eventually get the tools for as well - the tools to generate their own meaningful training data, without human intervention - and they will then get more creative. In fact they'll probably get those tools quite soon. They won't then need us merely for access to the complexity engine of the real world, as they do now.
In the meantime, they are completely dependent upon us to identify which art is "good" from our perspective, i.e. which strings of bits have some kind of meaning to creatures that evolved in the real world. To a computer program without training from us, today, any blobs of colour are mostly just like any other blobs of colour. The only interesting "aesthetic" criteria that they could start to learn for themselves without any input from us at all, is the Kolmogorov complexity of the data.
Once they can innovate properly in this space for themselves, what will still remain forever unknown to them is performing such innovation from the point of view of a human, because we're not replicable. We can be usefully approximated, even today, but you can never be sure of what you're losing in the approximation. For that reason, it will be useful that some humans will still always want to be artisans, and keep the historical version of the craft alive.
All of what you wrote is essentially wrong - but only on a long enough time scale.
In the longer term, humans are obsolete for all but one job. The question is just how long it takes.
10 years ago, it still looked as if it could take another 100 years for robots to replace humans in most jobs, even to the foremost experts. Not any more. A few relatively simple breakthroughs in learning algorithm design, plus enormous increases in $computing_power and scale, and now we can all see it. The last 10 years have been a snowballing revolution and there is no sign of anything which can stop it (unless it stops us as well).
You might notice that the above video has been around since 2014. It's changed a bit since then. When the original version of the above video was made, it was a third of the length, and it did not mention artists at all. At that time, artists (and programmers, mathematicians etc) were thought to be one of the last group of jobs that would vanish to automation! That's how fast the ground is now moving under our feet.
The ability of 2D artists to use their time and sweat to produce a piece of art that they can exchange for money is probably safe for 1-5 years, tops, for all of the reasons mentioned by others above. At some point after that, the described limitations will no longer apply, and the "exchange for money" part will be well on the way out. That will be because the time and sweat that it takes to produce the art will also be a thing of the past, except for artisans keeping the historical craft alive. Most of the former practitioners might have found other things to exchange for money by then - such as curating AI art, for example - or they might not.
Heavily manual jobs that really require the flexibility of a human body - things like being a plumber or a labourer - today look like the last group of "jobs" that will vanish to robots. The other two professions which would be around at that time would be "owner of inherited wealth", and "enforcer for an owner of inherited wealth", with the latter only required in small numbers to do the things that robot goons can't do by that time. But, that's just an extrapolation from today; it won't actually happen. It will meet the same fate as the extrapolations made in 2014 - the ground will shift again.
In the longest term, there's one single job which robots can't take, and that's to actually be human. We're the recipients of 3.5 billion years of evolution. Or to put it another way, 3.5 billion years of runtime of a massively parallel learning algorithm, running at the atomic scale, over almost the entire surface of a planet, on the fastest possible hardware. Our cells know secrets that it could take godlike AIs a billion years to decipher, even if they can still watch the cells in action. Only very stupid robots would throw that away.
I don't propose to arrange the tileset, because I haven't used any editors in a long time :-) I just meant to be specific that I was commenting on the art style not the layout.
Kinda doubt you could make these by hand without modern high-end tools, but they do look very good indeed :)
I think in a post-apocalyptic setting following the present day, all the guns would probably be 3D-printed, until the 3D printers eventually stop working...
Human art is mostly imitative as well.
Humans innovate over time because of our contact with what we call "the real world". That's something which the generative AIs will eventually get the tools for as well - the tools to generate their own meaningful training data, without human intervention - and they will then get more creative. In fact they'll probably get those tools quite soon. They won't then need us merely for access to the complexity engine of the real world, as they do now.
In the meantime, they are completely dependent upon us to identify which art is "good" from our perspective, i.e. which strings of bits have some kind of meaning to creatures that evolved in the real world. To a computer program without training from us, today, any blobs of colour are mostly just like any other blobs of colour. The only interesting "aesthetic" criteria that they could start to learn for themselves without any input from us at all, is the Kolmogorov complexity of the data.
Once they can innovate properly in this space for themselves, what will still remain forever unknown to them is performing such innovation from the point of view of a human, because we're not replicable. We can be usefully approximated, even today, but you can never be sure of what you're losing in the approximation. For that reason, it will be useful that some humans will still always want to be artisans, and keep the historical version of the craft alive.
@Paul Robinson *ahem*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
All of what you wrote is essentially wrong - but only on a long enough time scale.
In the longer term, humans are obsolete for all but one job. The question is just how long it takes.
10 years ago, it still looked as if it could take another 100 years for robots to replace humans in most jobs, even to the foremost experts. Not any more. A few relatively simple breakthroughs in learning algorithm design, plus enormous increases in $computing_power and scale, and now we can all see it. The last 10 years have been a snowballing revolution and there is no sign of anything which can stop it (unless it stops us as well).
You might notice that the above video has been around since 2014. It's changed a bit since then. When the original version of the above video was made, it was a third of the length, and it did not mention artists at all. At that time, artists (and programmers, mathematicians etc) were thought to be one of the last group of jobs that would vanish to automation! That's how fast the ground is now moving under our feet.
The ability of 2D artists to use their time and sweat to produce a piece of art that they can exchange for money is probably safe for 1-5 years, tops, for all of the reasons mentioned by others above. At some point after that, the described limitations will no longer apply, and the "exchange for money" part will be well on the way out. That will be because the time and sweat that it takes to produce the art will also be a thing of the past, except for artisans keeping the historical craft alive. Most of the former practitioners might have found other things to exchange for money by then - such as curating AI art, for example - or they might not.
Heavily manual jobs that really require the flexibility of a human body - things like being a plumber or a labourer - today look like the last group of "jobs" that will vanish to robots. The other two professions which would be around at that time would be "owner of inherited wealth", and "enforcer for an owner of inherited wealth", with the latter only required in small numbers to do the things that robot goons can't do by that time. But, that's just an extrapolation from today; it won't actually happen. It will meet the same fate as the extrapolations made in 2014 - the ground will shift again.
In the longest term, there's one single job which robots can't take, and that's to actually be human. We're the recipients of 3.5 billion years of evolution. Or to put it another way, 3.5 billion years of runtime of a massively parallel learning algorithm, running at the atomic scale, over almost the entire surface of a planet, on the fastest possible hardware. Our cells know secrets that it could take godlike AIs a billion years to decipher, even if they can still watch the cells in action. Only very stupid robots would throw that away.
You should specify that they both wrap horizontally (because they do).
I suggest adding "sky" and "clouds" to the tags.
There you go, 13Character5 - added ball and death animations.
It is adorable.
I don't propose to arrange the tileset, because I haven't used any editors in a long time :-) I just meant to be specific that I was commenting on the art style not the layout.
Suggest putting 12x12 and 24x24 in the tags.
AFAIK it's a rarely used size, so the users most wanting to find it will be the users who are also using that size.
Oddball size aside, the art is very nicely tuned for how simple and minimal it is. (y) (Can't comment on the usability of the layout, though.)
Kinda doubt you could make these by hand without modern high-end tools, but they do look very good indeed :)
I think in a post-apocalyptic setting following the present day, all the guns would probably be 3D-printed, until the 3D printers eventually stop working...
Will the old username forward to the new one? Otherwise links are gonna break.
I suggest some more tags: 16x16, top-down, RPG, Zelda, Zeldalike, animals, farm animals.
Pages