Of course an AI can not produce an image that matches what's on your mind 100%. Because by definition it will require you to provide all the information, a.k.a. you need to make the image by yourself first.
But I really don't think illustrators are as safe as the article implies. Yes, the jobs won't disappear overnight, but are there that much demands for illustration to support a future where every illustrator becomes 10x more productive than before?
(I've done illustration commercially before, while it's not my main source of income and I'm junior level at best.)
I was kinda tempted, but I don't think there is such a good metric to measure it. (Since the job market is heavily influenced by interest rate etc... and if I were confident at predicting macro economics I would just bet on stock)
What if we picked 10 prompts that it seems like an AI should be able to depict well, but it can't yet? And then iff the best AI tool in February can do the majority of them you win?
I'll bet against it tho. I don't actually believe pure text-prompt-to-image will improve much (not in a few months at least). I just believe there will be more non-text tools to guide AI, like LoRA and control net, and they will be more accessible.
Control net kinda did what you said but in a different timeframe: it was quite difficult to tell AI to generate a person "sitting with their legs cross". Today, it's relatively easy to do this with control net, but still hard with text prompt only.
Edit: and the sibling comment made me question myself why I would ever take a random bet on the internet.
I was just stating the improvement on SD we've seen since DELL-E 2 and Midjourney came out wasn't just about "quality of image", but also about "have something specific and moderately complex in mind". Thus I mentioned textual inversion vs LoRA/ControlNet.
I wonder why people take random internet bets, I've seen this on Twitter as well from some prominent people in the tech world, who just like betting on outcomes I guess. I saw it most recently with the LK-99 "is it a real room temp superconductor or not?" bets.
I think often someone tries to frame things into bets to pierce the layers of instinctual contrarianism and "have strong opinions weakly held" that often pervades internet discussion.
More charitably, reframing into a bet gives a relatively neutral opportunity of re-stating the discussion/argument to more clearly identify areas of agreement/disagreement (since a clear definition of the disagreement is crucial for forming a bet).
Of course an AI can not produce an image that matches what's on your mind 100%. Because by definition it will require you to provide all the information, a.k.a. you need to make the image by yourself first.
But I really don't think illustrators are as safe as the article implies. Yes, the jobs won't disappear overnight, but are there that much demands for illustration to support a future where every illustrator becomes 10x more productive than before?
(I've done illustration commercially before, while it's not my main source of income and I'm junior level at best.)