Raw LLM Responses

No offense, but every single person I’ve seen do apologia for AI art has used the “Luddite” argument and it has never worked because none of the tools you mentioned can be used as a real substitute for art and every single one represents a real innovation. Tracing over life requires steady draftsmanship and could allow for highly accurate images. A half-decent photo requires knowledge of how cameras work and can only capture real life, something which a painting could not previously do. Photoshop is literally just an art tool that can be used for anything, and it enabled the creation of digital art. All three of these things require a human to do the creation—AI does not, it completely removes humans and intentionality from the process and thus can only really be used for the generation of “content” rather than art. It’s also an argument that heavily replies on historical revisionism—I have literally studied the history of photography, and people on a large scale absolutely did not think it was going to “replace” real artists at the time. There were people who contested that it was art, sure, but that’s because it was believed that it was only useful in a journalistic context, not because it was an affront to the arts. Photography historians have also gone on record to say that most claims of photography being in direct competition with arts were largely exaggerated, as there is very little historical evidence of artists losing business over photography. The only people I’ve seen make that argument nowadays are people who are super into AI and want to delude themselves into thinking that ChatGPT is on the same level of significance as the camera—same with photoshop, which is also not true for the most part. I’m open to the possibility that AI could be a valuable tool for artists and can even think of several ways it could be useful. But as of right now it doesn’t do anything that a human being can’t already do themselves and can only operate via en-masse plagiarism—the only real innovation it has is that it removes humans from the process of creation, which isn’t necessarily a beneficial change. Stable diffusion allowing for offline generators with curated pools is a start, but by far the currently most popular generators are the ones that use data without consent, and every single model relies on plagiarism regardless of whether consent was given. Fix those. Until then, be prepared to be faced with mockery for using a medium largely associated with corporate greed, laziness, and fraud.