Interestingly I think this is less of a threat to furry artists then general artists in a way.
Furry art is usually character centric in focus, and not really scene focused.
A.I. can't create a new fursona out of thin air, it would have to be derived from those it can pull off line.
A.I. can't give the characters, character. It can only make images.
From what I can see, its ability to do nuances of characters is a bit rough, it's a bit better at landscaping and general works that are not front and center.
An example here by Rick Griffen shows him putting his own character on a background generated by an AI. Of course it has a cyberpunk theme.
In a way I see that the artists are now facing the same problem as comedians. Comedies go around claiming that comedy is 'dying' but it's more a issue that the delivery of comedy has fundamentally shifted. Stand up can't survive in the internet world where a great bit is basically shared around the world before the comedian can even get on the bus to get to the next city on their tour. The only thing that can survive is the improv style, being able to make up bits in the moment. The days of toiling over a typewriter for a set that you can use for a whole year are over.
In the art side, making single art pieces may erode in favor of highlighting character and content beyond stills. An AI can make a nice 'picture' but it cannot world build off the picture. It can't make a graphic novel. It can't create character or lore. Even if AI masters the ability to make a piece, it cannot create a puzzle.
Now if you like making single pieces, your defense would be similar to those in stand up comedy circuits. Kill the internet. Smartphones are taken at the door. Don't put your single pieces online and starve the AI from the ability to access your content. Go analog.
Furry artists will be fine. It's the ones who are doing still-life or landscape that should truly be more concerned.
Interestingly I think this is less of a threat to furry artists then general artists in a way.
Furry art is usually character centric in focus, and not really scene focused.
A.I. can't create a new fursona out of thin air, it would have to be derived from those it can pull off line.
A.I. can't give the characters, character. It can only make images.
From what I can see, its ability to do nuances of characters is a bit rough, it's a bit better at landscaping and general works that are not front and center.
An example here by Rick Griffen shows him putting his own character on a background generated by an AI. Of course it has a cyberpunk theme.
In a way I see that the artists are now facing the same problem as comedians. Comedies go around claiming that comedy is 'dying' but it's more a issue that the delivery of comedy has fundamentally shifted. Stand up can't survive in the internet world where a great bit is basically shared around the world before the comedian can even get on the bus to get to the next city on their tour. The only thing that can survive is the improv style, being able to make up bits in the moment. The days of toiling over a typewriter for a set that you can use for a whole year are over.
In the art side, making single art pieces may erode in favor of highlighting character and content beyond stills. An AI can make a nice 'picture' but it cannot world build off the picture. It can't make a graphic novel. It can't create character or lore. Even if AI masters the ability to make a piece, it cannot create a puzzle.
Now if you like making single pieces, your defense would be similar to those in stand up comedy circuits. Kill the internet. Smartphones are taken at the door. Don't put your single pieces online and starve the AI from the ability to access your content. Go analog.
Furry artists will be fine. It's the ones who are doing still-life or landscape that should truly be more concerned.