AI is a great *tool*, it’s not a replacement for creativity or hard work. It’s useful in more technical implementations like rapid prototyping or live suggestions, the menial tasks that would be considered a waste of an engineer’s or a programmer’s time. In the same way, it can be useful for an artist - you have a piece of art and you’re not sure if it would look better with cooler night tones or warm subset ones? Great - you can throw that problem at an AI and rapidly generate 10 concepts with all sorts of different shades to check the “feel” of it before you waste an entire day colouring your piece of art. You’re writing a story and you’re facing writer’s block? Not a problem, you can use AI to generate some cues based on what you’ve written so far and activate your imagination a little bit. AI output should not be considered the final output because it doesn’t actually create anything - it mixes and remixes things that it was trained on. If you’re going to call yourself an author, there’s a prerequisite of authorship there. Unless you’re writing a shitpost or making a meme - in those cases nobody really cares. If you want to know what people think about using AI in art, you’re more than welcome to look at how they react to Shadiversity - spoilers, it’s not positive. My position is in the middle ground - I think the anti-AI in all circumstances crowd is suffering from some kind of schizophrenic meltdown and are missing the point, or just don’t see the opportunity AI presents in terms of productivity and creativity. On the flip side, AI evangelists are also crazy - they suffer from delusions of grandeur because a computer spat out something that, to their untrained eye, looks decent. You want to strike a happy middle ground where you’re using the tools at your disposal to be the best creator you can instead of letting your tools replace you.
