Now wait a few (years?) until this technology can generate 3d models, environments, lighting, animation, etc. You won't even need animators, just feed the script in and get rendered scenes with virtual acting, dialogue, score, everything out.
Everyone who's dismissing this because it imitates the style of another artist (as if that was a hard technical limitation rather than a specific prompt) or lacks the je nais se quoi of "real" art is missing the point. No one would ever hire a concept artist capable of doing this when they can hire someone for a fraction of the salary to write prompts that return acceptable results in a fraction of the time.
The difference is that it can effectively turn someone with very little artistic training into an artist. Sure, it's not usable for every use case, but it would be usable for album cover, or just to have nice illustrations to draw people to a website, and some cases of concept art.
Art and entertainment hinges on novelty and message. If you have too much of something, eventually it becomes boring, with or without AI. Until we have something that could pass for AGI, you're going to need people making something meaningful and novel for you, regardless of the sort of their technical skills they currently happen to have.
>Art and entertainment hinges on novelty and message.
Do they? Show me something truly novel either in terms of art or message created by Hollywood in the last decade. Art and entertainment are risk averse industries - novelty is risk, genre is safe, and within genre you have well defined aesthetics, themes and material from which to derive new iterations on a theme.
The mashups in the blog posted upthread (particularly the Giger/Henson posts[0]) look far more visually striking to me than most modern sci-fi. I want to see that movie based on the look alone, and the look is literally just "what if Dark Crystal, but xenomorphs?"
