IMAGE: DALL·E

More and more publications are starting to use illustrations generated by algorithms such as DALL·E, Midjourney and others to accompany their articles, suggesting a trend from simply demonstrating that it is possible to set an algorithm to generate an image for an article to a more systematic use now that it is easier than ever to explain to an algorithm what it you want to illustrate.

Commissioning an illustration from one of these algorithms is as simple as typing a sentence: in the one accompanying this article, I asked for “a robot painting a picture of a sunset”, to which can be added further requirements, for which the algorithm generates four suggestions..

Who does the illustration belong to? It’s not an easy question to answer. It could be the property of the creators of the tool, but in this case, considering that the tool is fed by a huge database of illustrations in which it searches to “understand” what you are asking for, the chain becomes more complex. On the other hand, if the algorithm is supplied with images previously created by human illustrators, is this process sustainable over time? What happens when more and more images are obtained in this way? Will we tend to converge on a certain style or styles? Or will it lead to a creative revolution by allowing anyone to create illustrations, even if they are not able — as in my case — to paint a monkey when it’s hiding behind a tree?

The real issue here is that a job, that of an illustrator, already generally poorly paid and reduced, in many cases, to charging a few royalties for images included in databases, many of them available free, has been made even more difficult thanks to new competition: algorithms. One more human occupation set to disappear due to the pressure of automation, despite the fact that, in theory, and according to the Will robots take my job? website, the profession of illustrator, included in the heading 27–1013.00 defined as Fine Artists, Including Painters, Sculptors, and Illustrators, was given just a 16% risk, and estimated as “no worries”. Sadly, it looks as though many illustrators will be worried, as more and more writers realize that they can find the perfect image to illustrate their articles by simply describing what they need in a short, simple sentence.

Where do we go from here? The answer is very simple: the number of occupations that an algorithm, robot or similar is capable of doing will grow rapidly as the technology used improves. So what should people in professions being encroached by robots do? Attacking machines, like our old friend Ned Ludd did, doesn’t look like the best option. Protesting, demanding regulation or pretending to slow down the development of a technology has never worked. Taking refuge in the “humans do it better” argument does not seem to be a very good idea either, since, once again, the improvement of technology makes it possible to obtain better and better results. Looking for niches, such as audiophiles who still claim that “vinyl sounds better”, or those who insist on valuing a creation more highly “because it is made by human hands” may work for a while, but it does not seem sustainable either.

Instead, the solution lies in reinterpreting work, and in accepting that we are moving towards societies capable of supplying themselves with more and more things thanks to the use of technologies that progressively improve their capacities and results. This is why we need to explore the many varieties of unconditional basic income, of a society that provides its members with what they need to survive, even when their services are not, as such, strictly “necessary”. Because, as we have seen, we are all susceptible to being replaced by robots, sooner or later.

The meaning of work is one of the most important issues we will have to address in the future. And many, many aspects of life will depend on it. But things will only get interesting when we are finally able to agree on the premises.