I don't have a particuarly committed stance in either direction, although instinctively I feel that deliberate efforts to surpress
Say that AI art, with its current process of pure derivation from its bank of images, completely supplants human art. I'm not talking about commercial forces like which is cheaper and faster. Just side by side, human art has nothing more to offer than what could be procedurally generated with a sufficient set of data. That would mean 'creativity' is entirely derivative. If that were the case, (which I don't think it is) then I think there would be no reason to have issue with the total automation of art.
I want to borrow the concept of a 'solved game'. The original meaning is a game where there exists an optimal method of play that guarantees a win or draw, given optimal play by all contestants. An example of this is tic-tac-toe, where the game becomes trivial once you know the winning strategy. I want to apply this concept
Personally, I've been surprised by how far ai art has come. Chatbots are pretty convincing at times as well. I think it's a reasonable assumption to say that ai art will realise its current trajectory - the mushy fingers and lumpy body parts in odd places will probably get straightened out. Well, let's say it does. This is a test.
First, it's just incongruous to bemoan the hypothetical loss of manual labor. Are we to resent the fact that we don't have to grind pigments for our paints? Modern lifestyles are built on a graveyard of defunct manual practices since replaced by automation, some going more quietly than others.
There's a large amount of literate people who could in theory write a book... Most of them wouldn't be too great. I don't see why this shouldn't apply to ai art. Or is there nothing more to being a good artist than niche technical challenges? Perhaps a similar gnashing of teeth occurred when works of literature started being written in the vernacular...
Hell, the validity of digital art as a whole is contested within certain circles.
Ai occupies an awkward position, because while it's quite proficient in some aspects, it can be completely clueless in others. And almost always if you try to get too specific, it goes way off the mark entirely. Stuff like tweaking proportions, the designs on a piece of clothing, even being too specific about the background will cause issues.
But those are just trivial issues. What this all comes to is that fundamentally, words can't fully describe a picture. It just can't fit that much information into it. In the hypothetical where an ai can produce a picture that fits the brief provided verbatim, there is still an unimaginably massive space for interpretation. And if you want to be specific, the most straightforward way to make something how you want it to look is to paint it yourself...
But mediocre-ish is good enough for some purposes, like porn...maybe? I don't really know too much about how ai is being percieved over there.
Either way, let's say once again for the sake of argument that ai is capable of half reading your mind and composing an image in a way that aligns strongly with your personal sense of aesthetics and, given that you have strong drawing skills of your own, you would be hard pressed to articulate better yourself. Now, we'd have the capacity to produce comics or maybe even animated works at an exponentially greater speed. Perhaps visual artists could forgo the paintbrush entirely and act instead as a combination of scriptwriter and director.
Personally, I don't see myself adopting ai on its current directory into my personal workflow. I feel that I have a similar issue to photobashing; I want total control over my