You must log in or register to comment.

samdutter t1_it7wbyz wrote

As an artist I am concerned it will be disruptive to established industry. I think individuals will have a lot more creative power.

But this speculation is about far more than just art. Every single industry is going to be facing an inflection point like this very soon. I bet that within the year the music industry is going to be having a similar situation. And then accounting/data jobs, then robotic labor, etc.


Scrogwiggle t1_it885if wrote

I might switch from photo to a trade like a plumber. No lie


Psiweapon t1_it89czo wrote



eddieguy t1_it8zk0j wrote

Sitting in a room brainstorming a business for AI to build sounds fun though


thewhitedog t1_itjy4qp wrote

I'm a visual effects artist. A coworker of mine left the industry several years ago and literally started a plumbing business. He's got several trucks and a crew of guys, major contracts andhe is happy as fuck.

Meanwhile I stayed in, have been successful to the point of winning a bunch of awards including a bronze lion at Cannes for my work, but I'm fucking miserable and stressed out constantly.


NapClub t1_it90tba wrote

There is a kind of art that can be replaced completely by ai and no one will notice or care, and its the most gruling animation related stuff especially.

When i say no one will care. I mean the consumers, the artists out of work will care.

That said all high end art is probably safe but thats a small number of individuals.


daveinpublic t1_it9d0kt wrote

I don’t think it will lead to people being out of work. If anything I think Canva will be responsible for that, which isn’t really AI. It’s just well coded to create various combinations of designs without getting photoshop involved.

The AI art will just be one more tool an artist can use. If an artist wants to start from scratch they can. If they want to make 10 digital paintings a day they can use AI as inspiration and the first draft. People will not go out of work, there will just be much more work.

Once again, canva and apps like it are a different story, and take the place of a graphic designer for many companies.


Tsuna404 t1_it9ccd8 wrote

I doubt it, those same artist will simply use the AI to improve or speed up their work, just like programmers, so things will likely just stay the same.


NapClub t1_it9ej37 wrote

i am sorry but you can't get an ai to bare hand paint for you.

at the top end, people are paying for something that can't be replicated, anything made by ai will always be replicable.


myusernamehere1 t1_it9k74n wrote

Lol not yet, but the idea of an AI controlling a paintbrush (think simular to 2 dimensional 3d printing but with a paintbrush/nozel instead) isnt that far out


NapClub t1_it9kc23 wrote

again, that would replace working artists but not high end art.

you have to remember what the buyers actually want, and it's not something replicable, it's exclusivity.


Green__lightning t1_itmkmyh wrote

As someone who's ran a robotic welder, it would be plenty easy to do hardware wise, teaching painting technique to the software running it sounds like it would take quite a while though.


josiphertrace t1_itmf19p wrote

Correct, but you can use it in any number of ways to do other things before and during the painting process


NapClub t1_itmgfqo wrote

i mean there are already people who do that and none of them are at the top end, i suppose taste could change tho.

but the rich are very conservative, they change very slowly.

they're still mainly buying the same style that was popular a hundred years ago.


ralanr t1_it99huq wrote

Honestly surprised they haven’t tried doing AI for accounting to be honest. At least, not have it be before art.


TenzenEnna t1_it9mws8 wrote

The issue is as of right now "The AI misunderstood and coded these transactions wrong" is very very expensive in audit. Regulation would probably need to come first in that field.


josiphertrace t1_itmf9jq wrote

Unless you can train the AI to 'cook the books' as desired, there are too many industries reliant on "creative accounting" to allow a truly auditable, 'mechanical' hand at it.


Telkk2 t1_it9ktu6 wrote

It will but I don't think it'll destroy them. Rather, it'll create a shift from producing to investing and financing marketing operations for existing projects created by one or a few people. They'll probably still produce but they'll have one or two people on projects rather than large teams.

At least that's my guess. I'm excited because I see a much more robust independent industry and more opportunities to share the pie.


PLEASEHIREZ t1_it9mmlv wrote

I never thought the new AI would be so good. I think it will be hard for less talented artists, but the best artists will be fine. It's like synthesizing music, versus an actual instrumentalist. You can hear tone, depth, passion. Also, there's already AI making some pretty banging music.

For someone like me who only dabbles in art, AI would be a great tool to help me generate assets for a videogame or marketing campaign. But, I would also like to have original art in my home.

Don't be threatened by AI or robots, just use them to help speed up your process, or inspire you. Sometimes AI generates weird things you wouldn't have thought about.

Oh, and about automation. There's 3D printed houses, there flat boxes for drywall mudding, there's airless paint sprayers for painting, and aluminum studs for framing. You don't see a dip in wages for master trades people.


Gari_305 OP t1_it7e47w wrote

From the Article

>It’s still too early to tell whether this new wave of apps will end up costing artists and illustrators their jobs. What seems clear, though, is that these tools are already being put to use in creative industries.
>Recently, I spoke to five creative-class professionals about how they’re using A.I.-generated art in their jobs.

Which leads to an interesting question, will AI be utilized as a tool for artists or be used as a catalyst to displace the creative class?


FluxedEdge t1_it7rucz wrote

I think just like any medium, there will be people who claim to be "artists" using AI to generate mediocre "art", think of all the people who call themselves photographers who really don't have the skill/knowledge required to produce professional photos.

Same with AI, there will be those who master it and use it as another tool in their toolkit. Creatives will still be necessary and while AI in its current form is great for inspiration and mocking up quick renderings, good artists will always outshine the mediocre "artists" who are just using the tool without knowing all the fundamentals.

I don't think we artists can be so easily replaced, I hope.


Rodney890 t1_it7nnjc wrote

I'm a design student and have been thinking about it a lot. The thing I keep coming back to is this. For the foreseeable future someone has to direct it. If it could literally do everything on its own far more than just designers would have to worry about thier jobs. So, you fire your design team. So who's gonna direct it? The secretary? I think with every new innovation that let's us make more stuff our endless apatite for content also increases. So, will it costs current designers and illustrators thier jobs? There's a very real chance. But its almost guaranteed whole new fields will be created. Sorta like how a shit load of the traditional effects industry lost their jobs after Jurassic Park. But now there's more effects jobs than ever (and practical effects is still a large industry.)


Eralsol t1_it81vdp wrote

Normally I don't consider myself an expert, but I'm fairly certain you will face the same us translators did a couple years ago and still do:

Designer Jobs won't disappear, but they will indeed be reduced. You still need someone to direct it, but the number of raw employees can be reduced due to ai.

For example, a 6000 words urgent job needed 4 people, 3 translators each taking 2000 and a proofreader checking all 6.

Now you just need the proofreader doing postediting.

I'm sure designers will become posteditors as well. Taking raw designs from AI as a base.


IniNew t1_it8c1ox wrote

I don’t think translations and design are quite comparable.

Design work, at least in UX-UI is not “do this task” - execute - hand over. There’s still a ton if subjectivity.

It might replace things like templates did for web design - some smaller companies will opt for this instead of paying someone to do it, but anything higher than a landing page is still going to be looking for designers.


Eralsol t1_it8dqze wrote

Saying translation is only "do task, execute, hand over" is as silly as if I said "well, design is only "open PS, paint some lines, color them, hand over".

As if translation didn't have jokes, inuendos, paraphrasing, etc.

My comment is just a cautionary tale, that it is unwise to think AI will not be able to have more creative aspects to it (we are seeing it right now already).


Rodney890 t1_it83r1v wrote

For sure things will get wierd. But i also think a lot of new fields will be created. I've been trying to research it. What it comes down to is, automation is wierd and you can never really tell with new tech. I've been trying to be as objective as possible and not be on copium since I'm in school for it. Did you ever have these talks with other translators as the tech emerged and how has it impacted you're career?


Eralsol t1_it85dwa wrote

Indeed, have talked about this with my translator students, after stopping being on copium myself.

How has it impacted my career? In my case, for the better, but that's because I managed to climb the corporate ladder high enough fortunately, but I'm sure it's not so great for those who didn't. We'll still need translators, but not as much as we did even 5 years ago.

The only tip I can give you is the same I gave my students: competition will be even more fierce than it was before; polish that resume, polish your skills, keep learning, and embrace the technology instead of denying it, because you'll compete against people that will do all of that and more.


Rodney890 t1_it87bnh wrote

Yeah, more or less what I've been told. It's really changed up how I'm thinking about the stuff I'm making for my portfolio. It's kinda cool ngl.

Thanks for the advice 😁


nox_nox t1_it8it1d wrote

This is already being done with simple design software that uses lots of prefab pieces for people to click and drag to make their designs.

AI software may exacerbate this trend, but at the same time everything starts to look the same when using those tools. I suspect the same will be true to some level for AI design and art.

Unique design work will still probably be best served by a quality designer. Whether they use those tools or not will be their choice. But implementation and art direction are something AI will take a long while to catch up with. Just like self driving cars can do some things really well but fail at other aspects.

I'm a graphic designer and have been professionally for the last 16 years. Just the capabilities in non-ai based design software have made leaps and bounds of progression from when I started. The benefit in those improvements have cut my working time for specific tasks. I think future AI will mostly cut work times more and allow people with fewer resources greater access to more professional looking design.

But tools don't make good design, I've seen lots of garbage from people with access to the same tools as myself.


starstruckmon t1_it7wyxo wrote

>So who's gonna direct it? The secretary?

The marketing team? Instead of communicating with a designer they'd communicate with an AI.


Rodney890 t1_it803a6 wrote

I'm not so sure. Marketers aren't designers and a huge part of a designer's job is to explain to marketing people why something should be a certain way. Plus, I'm not sure a marketing team wants to deal with it. A large reason businesses owners hire photographers and designers is because they don't wanna deal with it themselves, even though anyone can use canva and most people have a servicable camera in their pocket. Plus, designers are responsible for making sure huge campaigns are consistent and it's all documented so everything is always consistent. Something AI aren't doing (yet)


starstruckmon t1_it816bi wrote

If we're talking about directly using the current text to image generators, thats true. But that's not what I'm talking about.

The real fun starts when you start connecting them to language models

This is an example with GPT3. But will get better in the coming years ( year? ) with even more powerful LLMs, especially the multimodal ones that can directly inagine visuals instead of just text that is passed to the text-to-image renderer ( the rendering model might still be used for the final composition but it helps to have the designer model be able to think in actual visual terms ).


Rodney890 t1_it82noo wrote

And at that point way more then designers will be at risk. Another interesting point is that we can already automate a shit load of white collar jobs.


iiJokerzace t1_it97b7g wrote

I think what is going to happen is not completely remove jobs, but dramatically reduce number of positions needed.

Still, I don't think human creativity will be dead. In fact, I think it will get better as we see what AI can inspire us with.


neoplastic_pleonasm t1_it9ahx5 wrote

If you take a look at the various AI art subs, you'll find that the most impressive works by far tend to be by people who were already artists.


Telkk2 t1_it9nipd wrote

Bingo. I'm in a startup that designs AI writing and production tools and an indie filmmaker. I reached the same exact conclusions, which has been guiding us to create user-controlled AI generative media. The future isn't just outsourcing. Its giving everyone what only rich people can and assistants.


Fredissimo666 t1_it7xciu wrote

Both I think. First, I think AI-generated art will be mostly used in non purely artistic contexts such as poster and ad design. There will always remain a market for human-made art.

For instance, my SO works at a small NGO and often need art for their newsletter. They have been thinking of using AI generated art instead of their previous method (looking for free images on google). Other companies may use AI images instead of hiring artists.


But there is an upside for graphical designer and the likes. AI-generated images could make them WAY more productive! Maybe they can get a rough estimate of what they want and then do some manual corrections. Or maybe they get really good at giving the AI the right prompt. Since they are more productive, their rates will drop, so more people will be able to afford graphical design. Imagine having a designer do custom christmas cards for you, or a banner for some event! So in the end, it may be the case that nobody loses their job!


elementofpee t1_it7ytlj wrote

What implications does this have regarding copyright and trademark protection? This seem like a really grey area.


starstruckmon t1_it822f5 wrote

I won't go into the actual legalities since that is still untested in the US. But practically, what difference does it make? If it's good enough, how is the copyright/trademark office or judge going to know it's AI generated?


ImACredibleSource t1_it8oqr8 wrote

Same way musicians get sued for using a specific melody. If it's sampled and not properly attributed, this can cause huge problems. Especially for big companies with lots of money to be taken in a lawsuit


starstruckmon t1_it8pc3j wrote

It doesn't work like that. So no, aren't going to find "samples". If you were to use an AI tool to see if it was simmilar to some other work, problem is putting human made works through that would also result in matches.


ImACredibleSource t1_it8q8lq wrote

Evrything that is generated is based on work made by real artists.


starstruckmon t1_it8riv3 wrote

It learns from images and artwork ( like humans also do ). There aren't going to be any "samples", not any more than you'll find in the work of other humans ( which was my point ).


ImACredibleSource t1_it8rx6x wrote

Artists actually have to be very careful about making derivative work without attribution. There's been loads of cases about it. Even the guy who duct taped the banana to the wall is getting sued because he took the idea from someone else.


Surferstan101 t1_it9mk8b wrote

It is a gray area for sure Corridor Crew touched on it recently by creating art the was inspired by a certain artist and it begs the question: Are you stealing someone’s intellectual property?

Though I’m sure very few people will care.


starstruckmon t1_it9pb5a wrote

No, style isn't copyrightable.


Surferstan101 t1_it9w4vg wrote

It’s not a human taking inspiration, it’s an ai directly using another artists work so who knows maybe they’ll adjust the legislation on it.


Fredissimo666 t1_itc7px2 wrote

It's still to be determined but I think the user should have copyright. After all, Photoshop already has automatic tools and nobody claims that the user loses copyright for using such tools.

In a finished AI image generator software, I expect there to be interractive functions. After you generate the first image, you can ask the AI to do stuff like "make the head funnier", or "keep the characters, but change the background". Then, the creative part very much involves the user as well as the AI.


hgs25 t1_it8oy2j wrote

I can see AI art be used for story boarding scenes in animation.


Roach802 t1_it93yv7 wrote

Boards will probably one of the last areas to use A.I. Putting together sequences is a complicated task that requires a lot of collaboration. Most professional artists avoid it because of how labor intensive and intricate it is. A.I. will be adopted for concept and design stages a lot more quickly (I would guess).


Fredissimo666 t1_itc7wfz wrote

Yes, or other applications where the final art does not matter much. If you are designing a poster for a small conference, you just need something that looks good enough, not necessarily the best.


celestiaequestria t1_it8nvr3 wrote

It will reduce the number of artists who can make a good living on their own skills, because it empowers the top talent (and firms) in the field to produce more work. A skilled artist who can tell the AI what they want, and then modify it as a painter / sculptor - could work with a handful of other artists to churn out tremendous volumes of work.

There are a ton of artists who make a living doing a good job drawing things most people don't want to draw - everything from boring stuff like commercial illustrations and technical drawings for training manuals - to furry porn. That's the kind of work AI can do far more cheaply - and that means illustrators for books and magazines, website drawings, personal art requests, billboard artists, et cetera - become more scarce.


dissidentpen t1_itge2d2 wrote

Similar to how AI has been slowly replacing human writers for online content creation.

Boring or not, it’s putting people out of work.


JeddakofThark t1_it8clrz wrote

As a 3D artist off and on for the last twenty-five years I've seen a hell of a lot of changes.

My main takeaway over that time is that new tools don't take away jobs. They just create more specialties.


AadamAtomic t1_it855jf wrote

>Which leads to an interesting question, will AI be utilized as a tool for artists or be used as a catalyst to displace the creative class?

AI is simply a tool just like a paintbrush, any child can use it but it takes a long time to master and develop a unique style.

When the First Photography cameras were invented, Painters and Portrate makers where Furrious.

"This will bring an end to painting! No one will sit by the river and paint anymore if they can just take a photograph!"

Now, Here we are 200 years later and painting hasn't gone anywhere...

A.I is just a new medium of art. It will coexist and be mixed and matched just like all other art forms.


ThatOtherOneReddit t1_it8f1tk wrote

Currently that's the only practical way to use it. It's very bad at doing specific things (as in narrowly defined stuff). It's MUCH better at giving.what you want if you can draw at least a clear but mediocre version of the final draft. All of them are incredibly awful at consistency so they aren't good for things like multiple angles of the same character or animation. Any attempt at that is a fever dream at best which is cool, but not really what you want in the vast majority of media.

Until these issues are solved it's mainly going to be a concept tool imo. I know a few professional and semi- professional artists who sketch a few things then generate like 20-30 different versions to help them concept out or send something back to the client so they can get clarification on what they want.

I used AI art recently as references for a commission I made. I think this will largely do what most tools have done. Raise the minimum bar of acceptable work this driving the quality up but the work amount will be the same overall, at least for the next few years.


layzclassic t1_it806kw wrote

The use of canva speeds up content creation for marketing, basically short garbage views on Instagram. But can't replace photoshop pros completely. Likewise, Photoshop can't replace painters, but we lost animated films like Ghibli


starstruckmon t1_it86nch wrote

>But can't replace photoshop pros completely.

True, not completely but most of them, yes. Currently there's literally one paper coming out per day on text based editing.


TheRoadsMustRoll t1_it87h0t wrote

i see something in this (and also ai music) that nobody sees -i always get the thousand mile stare when i mention it.

imo the "artistry" in these works isn't just the end result (the painting or musical composition.) It's in the programming. ai isn't an objective source. i could program my "Bach" or "Van Gogh" machine and it would behave differently than my colleague's machine because we each have our own strategy for getting from a to b.

so we could critique the programmer based on how well the result matches the original master if they are producing new "Van Gogh" material. this would be no different than judging wine by how closely the taste matches the grape.

or, if somebody is producing original material (not based on a historical precedence), then we could judge the programmer on how original or compelling the end work is.

none of this usurps traditional art. instead of working in oils or watercolors these artists work in code; its just a different medium.


MisterViperfish t1_it96eo6 wrote

I’ve been planning to use AI generated stuff to get original ideas across to real artists. I think there’s a sweet spot in which AI art makes for great reference material but only to communicate to someone who can put it all together if you want anything specific. But it’s only a matter of time before that changes too.


blahblahrasputan t1_it8ke75 wrote

Anecdotal but we're messing around with it at our VFX (mid sized) studio. The artists are excited. It's just another tool.


Sculptorman t1_it7mdbr wrote

In the future it might be possible for artists to train the AI in their own unique style, meaning one artist can essentially clone themselves and be way more productive.


IM_INSIDE_YOUR_HOUSE t1_it7p8v1 wrote

But then once the artist is successfully cloned, what use does society have for the original artist?


BigZaddyZ3 t1_it7s3qr wrote

Good question. But I suppose that’s where copyright and intellectual property start to come into play…


celestiaequestria t1_it8oooh wrote

Those systems only exist to protect those rich enough to hire their own elite squads of lawyers to enforce the laws, and the lobbying to get favorable versions of those laws written.


Niresque t1_it7q44j wrote

Disclaimer, I disliked AI-art in general.

The original artist would still be used to further evolve the AI, continuous training with more of the artists original works would be the only way the AI could "evolve" otherwise you only get a snapshot of their talent.


CrazyC787 t1_it7qur4 wrote

Yall are giving way too much credit to the future of a fucking denoising algorithm lmfao


[deleted] t1_it8rgzb wrote



CrazyC787 t1_it9obtl wrote

Pretty outraged.... 150 years from now, lol. Nice sci-fi cope


[deleted] t1_itb3nhu wrote



CrazyC787 t1_itgsepm wrote

And yet the rate of innovation has been slowing down the past decade. Moore's law is dead in the water, and the slow down is incredibly obvious if you compare the change in technology from 2000-2012 compared to 2012-2022. AI and a very small handful of other technologies are the only ones actually innovating at a rate consistent with how it was before.


Orc_ t1_iths09n wrote

> 150 years from now, lol. Nice sci-fi cope

I think it's somebody else who is trying to cope with a world moving too fast...


CrazyC787 t1_itjxb0v wrote

Okay you're right, it'll probably be more like 40-60 years from now lol.


stainfellow t1_it7vmn2 wrote

Profoundly dumb question. Are you going to take your kids crayons away because “society has no use for original artists?”


comradejiang t1_it7mvq6 wrote

You could already do this with Stable Diffusion and uploading only your works to it.


Baron_Samedi_ t1_it8dayu wrote

A more interesting phenomenon is how AI art users are already making "deepfakes" in established artists' style. Tech savvy concept artists like Greg Rutkowski, who was conscientious about tagging his online art with clear descriptions, became overnight reluctant AI art gods. It remains to be seen if the glut of online art with his name attached will help or hurt their sales.


starstruckmon t1_it8q0jm wrote

The only reason he became popular is because he was the default example in the Disco Diffusion notebook ( where all this really started ) and people started copying from that. I don't know who came up with the tagging nonsense. There's thousands of other artists who have just as much work out there and their names produce just as consistent styles as Greg.


nomhak t1_it7o8by wrote

I see the value of ai-generated art as a really good way to lay down rough comps quickly. Allowing designers and artists to spatter a huge variety of different ideas in a matter of minutes instead of hours.


lemmful t1_it7ph2z wrote

This is how I use it. I already do art, mostly composition-based art, and seeing a near-final product first before I delve into my own work has made the process far easier for me.


nomhak t1_it7rpfp wrote

Yeah I bet! I always struggle with rapid concept generation so I don’t get fixed on one path. Being able to use ai that can modify compositions, colours, or even principals like rule of thirds or golden ratio sounds mighty appetizing to me.

I haven’t spent much time playing with ai (yet) but I’d like to see a tool with the flexibility of procreate or photoshop married with ai and the features I listed about. Are you aware of anything like that?


lemmful t1_it8d7uo wrote

I know with Midjourney, you can see "variations" of your selected AI work. And DALL-E allows you to upload images to get variations on that. I have not seen integrated software that edits AI imagery, though.


doot t1_ith2ama wrote

there's a blender plugin for stable diffusion


Styphin t1_it7ybcf wrote

We use AI art in our creative mood board process. Once feedback is given on the moodboards, we dive in to asset creation with our own style, using the AI art as a springboard. We have won two out of the last three pitches with this process.


NeokratosRed t1_it960qh wrote

For now. Give it 10 years tops, and there will be AI that will create masterpieces based on a few lines of text.


nomhak t1_it96uxi wrote

Didn’t an ai win a fine arts competition recently? I’d say it’s already creating master pieces. Most of what we’re seeing is really impressive style mashups where ai is generating art based on our aesthetic tastes and understanding of gestalt.

I imagine in 10, 15 years we’ll be well beyond that - with ai driving innovations in artwork theory entirely independent of human intervention. It just really needs to break out of a human trained model into something akin to free-thinking. I’m pretty stoked about it, really. Change is the constant humanity tends to fear and detest - the arts are usually a bit more liberal but we’ve seen this pattern with the introduction of photography. This will allow us to bridge a new realm of what art could be.


Slothsucks t1_it7x9aw wrote

As someone that is currently at one of the top post graduate arts unis in the world, there is a lot of students that are using AI somewhere in their practice, either directly or in-directly. Even if it’s just to generate and test their own ideas.


socialcommentary2000 t1_it81dnj wrote

It really is genuinely good for subject generation that one can then take and do in their own medium as a study and practice. I really like it for this.


drakt12 t1_it8bgvn wrote

Yes I found I can develop new ideas very quickly with lower opportunity cost. Sometimes the AI images will spark a new way of thinking. My own art might look nothing like the AI images but they might inspire me to use certain color combinations. For now it’s more of tool. What the future holds well who knows.


ImACredibleSource t1_it8ogz6 wrote

It's just a tool. People are freaking out the same way they did when photography came out, and that it would kill painting. Or when the record came out, and people thought it was the end of live musicians.

I think art, music, dance, literature, etc. Will be the last things to be automated. It's much easier to displace jobs with a clear logic and rules like medicine, or law than it is for art. And the whole discussion kind of annoys me because nobody seems to acknowledge this.


paramach t1_it8o6kq wrote

As someone who is in the IT industry, AI is not nearly at the level of sophistication that humans have regarding art. AI algorithms are clumsy and random, spewing out grotesque products. Even if an AI managed to paint something beautiful or awe inspiring, it's still pointless because it was made by a machine. Real Art can only come from the human soul as a reflection of the human experience.


datdude- t1_it8zg48 wrote

As some 1 in IT aswell, your take is awefull :)


A_throwaway__acc t1_it8zg8g wrote

>it's still pointless because it was made by a machine.

Why? If the product is superior why would it be discarded because a machine did it?

>Real Art can only come from the human soul

Oh, a subjective "humans are special" feeling. Considering AI is already winning art contests...this doesn't seem to be a popular view.


paramach t1_itabruz wrote

Which art contests? Source? Proofs?

Let me give you an example. Would you rather pay $1000 for a Picasso or an AI's rendition of a Picasso?

Obviously you would opt for the real Picasso right? It has real world value, not just because it's pleasant to look at, but because a HUMAN master took every bit of time and care needed to create it. He pours his SOUL into his creation. That's what we as humans value. That's why the Picasso is worth millions while the AI creations are worthless.


A_throwaway__acc t1_itm3nk3 wrote

Sorry for the late answer, i had to gather lots of sources.

What exactly is "soul" in the context of creation? You are talking in vague terms.


We ALREADY live in a time where AI creates arts almost same as humans, in the future AI will surpass humans.


An AI wrote a japanese novel and won Japan's national literary prize.

This is a much bigger deal than you think it is, japanese is an extremely complex, nuanced and contextual language.

There are over 10 ways of say "i" depending if you are a girl, a woman, a boy or a man or you have a special work apart of multiple ways to address others ranging from very polite to very rude.

Actually, thanks to the intrincacies in the language, japanese is rated among the most difficult languages in the world to learn along mandarin and telugu.

Even with all these hurdles, an AI was able to write a novel that makes enough sense AND is has an alluring plot good enough to win second place in the eyes of experts of one of the countries with the longest literary history of the planet, surpasing human authors.

Instead of commission a famous writer to write a novel to your liking or spending hours looking for a book you might like, why not press a button and have tens of award-winning-tier books written in seconds?



An AI won the 1st place at fine arts contest in Colorado.

The most popular use of AI is in ART, an AI is able to reproduce and even create something that could take a human months, in just seconds! Everyone knows of dall-e 2 but there are many popular ways to create art in seconds.

In just a matter of seconds you can have many takes of mona lisa's in a cubist style made with craiyon.

We have reached the point where an AI can create photo-realistic people, animals, places and etc that don't exist:

AI has reached the point where it can make out of the blue realistic things that do not really exist in our world, or in reality itself.



An AI music composing service let you own the copyrights of the song created by the AI and even better, compose something based the YOUR influence possibly creating a new genre!

Instead of hire a composer and have to wait weeks to have a song composed you might not like, an AI can easily generate multiple tracks that fit your tastes.

How good is the result? Check it for yourself.

Want to try a free alternative? There are many, this site AI makes songs portraying any emotion you want in genres you want, royalty-free.

This specific website generated FIFTEEN songs in just 1 second.


One of the biggest arguments against AI i have seen is:

"But AI can just do things after humans give input, they can't create M-A-G-I-C-A-L new things like we humans do!".

Many models of AI do rely on an input so the machine knows what it should be creating, but this is not universally the case anymore.

An AI developed by google can now learn by itself, relying in it's own memory to create stuff, this means that, like a human, it can use it's own "brain" information to create things that it was not specifically told to create.

This is a model that emulates human concept of creativity and logic made into AI.

All these things are happening RIGHT NOW, imagine what will happen in the future.

AI will eliminate the need for human artists.


paramach t1_itoth6m wrote

Wow. I asked for sources and you delivered... And then some

I appreciate your detailed, well cited response. My argument has clearly collapsed. AI can create meaningful art and music, as proved by your sources.

Idk if you heard this story or not, but recently a conversational AI from Google convinced 2 or more Google engineers that it was sentient. One of them even lost their job advocating for awareness of the AI's "sentience."

The technical folks at Google claimed the engineer was batshit crazy and was fooled by clever programming/algorithms. Spoiler alert, I agree with those folks, BUT I also believe that the Google engineer honestly believed the AI had sentience. That's as high a score as you can get on the Turing test... We have made great strides in the field of AI in the recent few decades, that's for sure.

HOWEVER, if AI is so powerful and so indistinguishable from human products, why not just use it for everything? Have it do all our work, solve all our problems, and create all the art/music/literature? Because AI is not there yet, from a technical/Capability point of view. AI is good at singular tasks, like making a picture or writing a tune, but it breaks down when given broad general tasks. The human brain is complex and thinks critically. AI can't think critically. It can only make decisions based on the data it was fed and the algorithms/code that interpret that data. Although it can do incredible things, AI is still outclassed by human intelligence. Unless we make some miracle breakthroughs within the next century, I don't see this changing anytime soon.


A_throwaway__acc t1_itpo4nq wrote

>The technical folks at Google claimed the engineer was batshit crazy and was fooled by clever programming/algorithms. Spoiler alert, I agree with those folks

I agree too with this, what the developer did was also heavily edit the conversation to remove the illogical answers by the AI or ignore when the AI spoke of a nonexistent family it said it had at a non existent home.

In the end it was a developer that wanted the AI to be more than it was.

>The human brain is complex and thinks critically. AI can't think critically.

I do not know how you define critical thinking but the last point shows an AI model made by google that can reach logical conclusions on it's own.

It was told how some family relationships work on a family tree...and then the AI by itself made accurate linkings in the tree, as if it knew how to use critical thinking to reach a conclusion 2 members were related.

Still, this AI model is super new, and AI is the hottest tech right now.


Palachrist t1_it7ukw5 wrote

It’s strange that the issue seems to be “will ai take over jobs for artists?” I value my daughters art because it’s snapshots into her thoughts. Hers. She doesn’t have to make money from it but being encouraged to be creative growing up is what I’m aiming for. My parents didn’t discourage creativity but they certainly never gave me direction or encouragement and I suffer from it.

Personally I believe ai art is fantastic. Rejecting it would be like “old people” when new genres of music are created. I like the idea of eventually using an ai to show me, visually, what I’m thinking in picture form. I’d rather not pay some dude $100 and hope he nails it. With ai I can just narrow or broaden my terms and it’d not going to be $50+ per try.

Sometimes warhammer art is perfect for how I visualization it. And many other times there are scenes that are just okay and I would’ve been bummed had I been the one to commission it.


nikfang t1_it86qwg wrote

I think it will take over graphic design jobs more creating illustrations for corporations and weird background shapes. Maybe even get to logos


starstruckmon t1_it7xyke wrote

Exactly. Just because the printing press ( or printer, or word processor ) made the scribe obsolete as a profession doesn't mean people don't learn to handwrite things and put it to use.


Ijustdowhateva t1_it7vapi wrote

It truly astonishes me how shortsighted people are about this technology in particular.

There seems to be some weird concensus that, just because the models aren't perfect right now, that this tech is just going to be another tool for "real artists" to use.

In reality, the next decade is going to see the near entire replacement of artists at every level of creation, and in multiple fields. Photography is just the beginning, music and video will soon be the next pieces to fall.

You can sit there and say things like "It doesn't have a soul / I don't even LIKE the images made by AI / It'll always need human input!" all you want, but stop and ask yourself when the last time was that technological progress stopped just because a small group of people felt threatened.

Synthetic media is the future of entertainment. The only input it'll need from humans is when you tell it what you want to watch / hear / play.

(Downvote all you want. Won't change anything.)


just-cuz-i t1_it945v7 wrote

We already watch synthetic media we literally call “computer generated images.” The field employs more people than ever worked in traditional effects and we all love (most of) their work.


FoolishInvestment t1_itay4qg wrote

I don't think AI will ever be able to satisfy the needs of furries. They need their Fursona with all of its little details and neon colors.


Psiweapon t1_it89liu wrote

The onus of proof is on your side to explain why in freezing blazes is this a future worth pursuing.


Ijustdowhateva t1_it8gqhm wrote

The ability to instantly create any piece of media you want sounds fun, not to mention its faster and cheaper than having to deal with other people.


Psiweapon t1_it8i0fk wrote

Incredibly deep and well studied motivations to base the future of several cultural sectors on, to be sure...


Ijustdowhateva t1_it8ifrd wrote

I could think it's a good idea because it's fun or because it channels chakral spirit energy into pixel form, doesn't matter. This is coming whether you like it or not.


Frostivus t1_it8sspn wrote

Technology did not care for artisans with automation. What mattered was the bottom line. Money. Efficiency. Capitalism.

The average joe cared little as long as they got their cheap iPhones. The companies will now get an AI to do the work of millions for the price of a few.

People would cry foul up until they get a new Marvel movie with millions of hours of manpower’s worth of visual effects made only possible with AI. And none of the ‘overworked’ stuff we are already seeing.

There is no pursuit. This is already the direction.


Psiweapon t1_it8t6h8 wrote

The dereliction of agency is astonishing


Frostivus t1_it93b9w wrote

You can expend your limited human energy to fight progress, or you can seek to understand it, adapt to it, and then influence it.

But Pandora’s box is open, and if you think we can go back, then the onus is on you to explain why.


samwe5t t1_it8bkce wrote

How could this replace artists? Doesn't this just take a bunch of sample art made by humans and mash it up in an "intelligent" way? You would still need humans to create new ideas. AI doesn't have that yet


symonym7 t1_it8dwud wrote

Most “new” ideas have always just been mash-ups of existing ideas.


Captn_Porky t1_it8nz3k wrote

Individuals different perception, and different perspectives give them new ideas


samwe5t t1_it8m0tn wrote

Well, yeah, there are a lot of mediocre and bad artists. But there are at least some good artists who produce new ideas. There are no AIs that can do that


bric12 t1_it8weeg wrote

I think you're overestimating how creative good artists are. Sure, they have good ideas, but it's very rare that it's ever in a completely new style that's never been seen before, and is also good. You're also underestimating how creative a neural network can be at trying to fulfill constraints.

Humans definitely still have the edge in creativity, I'm just saying the gap is much smaller than you're implying


symonym7 t1_it92ejm wrote

Picasso was, well, Picasso because he was constantly working; producing an absurd amount of material and [probably] collecting some form of feedback that modulated his direction. With AI (DAL•E for example) you’ve got thousands+ of human inputs, millions of interpretations, and instant feedback in the form of whichever interpretation the human inputs are choosing.

Good art can provide the illusion of magic, but that didn’t just happen one day - it took literal eons of trial and error and AI’s doing that in, y’know, less than eons.


Krystami t1_it91h64 wrote

All ai art I have seen has has the same rendering style despite different art styles and art qualities.

The highest quality pieces have the same rendering as the purposefully lowest quality looking ai art.

There could be a hyper realistic piece, a styled one, anime, Chibi, animal, landscape, etc. it is all rendered the same regardless of style.

What is the default resolution on images without upscaling (which still changes what the image looks like I noticed)

Are there able to be intertwined layers that can be moved around with transparency?


nitrohigito t1_it8xtoh wrote

You provide the idea via a textual prompt that the model then uses as a basis.


SketchyCharacters t1_it90kvc wrote

Say you want to make a new album cover for your upcoming piece. Before, you’d ask for a studio for a graphic designer, photographer, etc but if you’re not looking for anything perfect then AI art can pretty much do all their jobs.


MongolianMango t1_it92zii wrote

Think of that this way.

In a movie, a director asks actors and camera people to move around in a way that captures the vision he is in his mind.

When someone commissions artwork, they are doing the same thing as a director - they want a certain character a certain way in a certain style.

So rather than hire an artist, you would hire and manipulate an AI. For an artist to compete, they would need to be able to better capture a person's vision than a computer and also do so at a rate that's economical, which as tech progresses will be difficult. Already, art that is purely descriptive (I want you to paint me a girl with a sword) is essentially obsolete for human artists to compete with.


Black_RL t1_itb9hgd wrote

You text the ideas, go check DALL•E, Stable Diffusion or Mid Journey.


Jefc141 t1_it7oq1q wrote

No it isn’t… edgelords just post their bullshit generated nonsense and call it “art”…


killer_by_design t1_it8ikc8 wrote

It really is. I'm an industrial designer. I've designed super yachts, athletic tracking devices for rugby, boxing and American football, EV chargers and more.

I'm a huge technology nerd (obviously in a Redditor). Through my career I've watched simulation software get smarter and eliminate dedicated engineers, rendering software become so easy you don't need a visualiser, CAD software become so easy you don't need a draughtsman, Product lifecycle software eliminate QA and NPI engineers. That entire department I've just described is literally now just me. I've been a solo designer for nearly 90% of my >10 year career.

I've started using AI in my concept generation and soon AI will eliminate the need for a separate Industrial Designer and consolidate it back into a single role doing the above stuff I mentioned plus concepting. It doesn't need to be the best in the world. Just good enough and a user needs less and less skill as time goes on.

Soon, I won't have render software, it'll be a rough base model and I tell it what to make it look like. Like Vizcom does right now.

Photoshop, I'll upload a photo and describe the changes I want.

CAD software I'll outline roughly what I need and then an AI Will generate the design for me Like Autodesk Generative design .

>No it isn’t

You're too late. It's already changed the landscape for design and I'm telling you now it'll change it forever to come.


MongolianMango t1_it93247 wrote

People are pretentious, I agree. Calling themselves directors might be valid, but artists? No way.


[deleted] t1_it7peba wrote



Psiweapon t1_it7unjg wrote

Whomever thought that automating unique, fullfilling, creative work was a worthwhile idea to begin with is an absolute piss-for-brains

So here you have another one.


Jefc141 t1_it83ci5 wrote

Found the moron who doesn’t understand what art even is.


[deleted] t1_it87pqz wrote



BetweenWizards t1_it9qdr5 wrote

Well I'm pretty sure it isn't putting a few words into a prompter and getting a program to do it for you, right? It is an unquantifiable difference and people won't be able to notice. But I think it's still a downgrade for us humans as the sun sets on our civilization.


ArmoredHippo t1_it82bng wrote

I think it's going to open the creative doors for a lot of people, and allow folks to produce creative things they weren't able to do before very easily - which is exciting.

At the same time I think it's absolutely going to wreck the viability of certain freelance artist gigs (freelance concept artists especially).


Key-Tadpole5121 t1_it8rhak wrote

I remember when people said artists were the only safe jobs when it came to ai


MongolianMango t1_it944sz wrote

Right now storytelling and themes will still be safe. The AI will have some difficulty giving work real meaning, and I'm not saying that because I am some kind of human elitist - I still believe AI will wipe out most of the art industry. But how do you "train" an AI to write a narrative handling how to deal with a romantic comedy where each character handles love in a different way, for example, with consistent characterizations and character growth over many many chapters, and resolving in a chaotic final scene where everyone's arcs resolve at once? Certainly it might be possible but it is not a trivial problem the way generating "Elon Musk as an Astronaut" already is, or using AI Dungeon to roleplay as a wizard or write a beautiful description of a house.

As above however, art that exists purely to be descriptive or entertain will not be safe at all however. An already difficult profession to break into will be made tougher still to make a living from.


Emergencycallout t1_itbf7l4 wrote

step 1: create an AI that "feels" love.

step 2: send John Connor back in time to prevent armageddon.


Rojo37x t1_it7pohv wrote

Not sure if this is the best place for it but I've tried to find some of these apps myself and had a little trouble so I'm curious if anyone has any information on one.

I'm looking for something very simple and user friendly that would mainly be used for fun/entertainment and not commercial purposes.


lapseofreason t1_it7v0oa wrote

Try dreamstudio. There is a small charge for generating images but it's negligible. Go to r/stablediffusion for guides and help


starstruckmon t1_it7yiod wrote

/r/DallE2 has the best comprehension, which means it requires the least amount of skill or fiddling, while also producing coherent works. No complicated setup either.

It's not free, but you do get 50 free credits when you start and 15 every month which should be enough to have fun with.


hgs25 t1_it8odd5 wrote

While I will say that that reason I buy art is because I like a particular artist’s style or content, I am also worried that it’ll limit future generations creativity and we start to see a lot of the same art style.

One example I see is in animation. I noticed that a lot of people who went to an art school often come out with the same art style because that’s what they’re taught to emulate as “good”. Meanwhile amateur animators on YouTube have more variety in styles while still be good/pleasing to look at.


Bullet1289 t1_it92orc wrote

I'm absolutely loving making art with dalle-2 on an individual level. It's such a cool feeling to type in what you are thinking of and have it pop up on scene. I've even been learning the basics of editing to fix up details that it messes up. From a legal and creative standpoint I think its a total mess but I also don't think our copyright laws are really designed for the earlier dawn of the digital age, let alone AI art.
For the meantime I'm gonna have as much fun with it as possible and excitedly watch for what the newer and better machines will be capable of.


The_One_Who_Slays t1_it98pl6 wrote

I cannot even argue with those words, because it's an absolute truth. This technology can be used even by complete amateurs like me. Which I constantly do, by the way. As a consumer, I am very excited, because even if AI image generation is not fully refined, with a sheer force of will, perseverance and a bit of luck - you can pretty much achieve your desirable result. No, really, I actually am excited, I can't stress this enough: haven't felt like this since I've been a child.

Still, I do feel bad for the artists, somewhat. After all, because of this technology, unless they adapt somehow, they'll fall into obscurity and become nothing more than a stepping stone in its development and refinement. However, if I were to choose between my own tool that I can use however I like or borrowing a cruder version of it along with the skills of its owner, with produced results that, at the same time, might wildly deviate from my expectations - I'll go with the former, no doubt.


_z_o t1_ita574d wrote

The best part will be when I don’t have to travel anywhere. I will just ask AI to render some photos of me on touristic places to post on Instagram 😂


FuturologyBot t1_it7itfd wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Gari_305:

From the Article

>It’s still too early to tell whether this new wave of apps will end up costing artists and illustrators their jobs. What seems clear, though, is that these tools are already being put to use in creative industries.
>Recently, I spoke to five creative-class professionals about how they’re using A.I.-generated art in their jobs.

Which leads to an interesting question, will AI be utilized as a tool for artists or be used as a catalyst to displace the creative class?

Please reply to OP's comment here:


djutopia t1_it8ggdj wrote

I’ve used it for poster design for dance nights. It cuts way back on my design time by getting an idea 75% there and I still have a majority of the creative influence on what the final product is.

My latest was for a night called “Electric Jellyfish” and this was my 5th poster for it. Instead of spending a lot of time finding jellyfish images and photoshopping the bejesus out of them I was able to get a solid output from midjourney and then photoshop the bejesus out of it.

Edit: pho shopping / photoshopping. Although I am in Seattle and I do go pho shopping on occasion.


SenatorsOfSol t1_it908c0 wrote

We at Magboot Games love the speed and quality we’re able to achieve by adding AI to the art development workflows for Senators of Sol. We fully embrace AI as a tool to aid creative endeavors.


just-cuz-i t1_it93ips wrote

As someone that has used computers to help me do art for decades and that implements and supports use of AI art generators and every computer art generation tool in high-end production pipelines for movies and commercials, I think these new tools are just another new and invaluable tool that expands access to the creative potential of humanity.

Of course we have to remember exactly what they are, and of course, issues of true “ownership” get complex. But those concerns are us letting the interests of money override the art itself. Word processors made everyone a writer. Camera phones made everyone a photographer. VFX software made everyone an animator. These cycles always come and go but we’ve managed to keep making all of those things and have people that find life success doing them. This will be just another tool along those same lines.


echwrites t1_it9bq35 wrote

The overwhelming response from artists I follow on twitter is that they want no part of this and do not want their work being taken and used by AI enthusiasts or AI “artists”

There was huge backlash against it when NFT spam took off last year and earlier this year


dubadoo1 t1_it9c29h wrote

The writing is on the wall, anyone that isn’t the top .0001% of artist (any type of artist from music to video to sculpture etc) that is relying on their art for a living will soon be out of a job. 10 years before most are displaced would be my guess, maybe less if progress accelerates at the rate it has. Corporations don’t care about anything except profit and will use AI to maximize profits because it is more efficient and cheaper than a human.


meridian_smith t1_itaji7s wrote

As someone who has spent many years in the animation industry, I think AI tools will have the same net effect as all previous tech breakthroughs: raise the bar to make more animation, faster and cheaper and better quality. So AI will speed things up and get rid of the most mundane aspects in animation and the industry expectations will also rise with it.


ronyclayaa t1_itakc0n wrote

While AI art is impressive, all AI generated images I ever saw are very "derivative". Which I guess is the point of machine learning. By derivative I mean that the AI takes a bunch of pre-existing art pieces and cobble together an art style, but can't really create a new coherent style or subject, so humans have an edge on creativity at least for now. An AI trying to create a new piece of art is like trying to make a new soda flavor by mixing up different sodas... Not really creative, if you ask me.


jormungandrsjig t1_itar152 wrote

It was cool when it came out but I think the fad is waning.


Veylon t1_itb3upi wrote

I'm just waiting for the lawsuits. Most of the art that's fed into the algorithms to create the neural networks is copyrighted. As soon as somebody tries to make a significant money off of it, there's going to be some hard questions asked about how the AI-generated sausage gets made.


Dtoodlez t1_itgd8i5 wrote

I think it’s an asset to creatives across any discipline. I work in design and during the ideation process some of us have started using ai to break away from linear ideas. Maybe you’re in a creative block, it helps. As always, I see it as just another tool, I don’t think it will replace artists but it might make things more efficient.


mordorxvx t1_it7sf0t wrote

Can’t wait for this fad to die out. It’s dry and emotionless, it doesn’t ever feel like real art.


starstruckmon t1_it7xkej wrote

Yes, the ability of anyone anywhere to generate anything they want or can imagine instantly and at almost no cost, is definitely just a fad.

You've definitely got it all figured out.


mordorxvx t1_it7ygva wrote

It definitely has uses and will be used where it can be, duh. But to claim it’s art and you’re an artist because you strung a list of words in a generator and out popped a big-breasted animated woman is like claiming you’re a chef because you ordered BK in the drive thru.


MongolianMango t1_it92b9k wrote

My perspective is that there's nothing to be afraid of esp. if people use AI to create scenes or characters they have already visualized in their minds. When we think of it like this, it's just another awesome tool for expression, and people who use AI are essentially acting like movie directors.

However, my worry is that instead, people will just generate lots of art with no clear idea of what they want beforehand and just pick what looks cool out of what the AI generates. There's a subtle difference because people who do that are relying on the AI to be creative, and much like GPS has caused people's navigational skills to deteriorate and that will cause people's creative skills to become stunted as they outsource their imagination. That would be a generational tragedy regardless of whether or not that means the actual quality of art goes up or down.

So my advice to people who use these tools would be to remember to let you control the AI and not have the AI control you.


A1Advice t1_it99nht wrote

Artists complaining about this AI making it harder for them or taking jobs away is like mathematicians complaining about calculators taking their jobs.


racingwthemoon t1_it8q0n8 wrote

Goodbye Art Directors, Graphic Artists, Digital Artists, Photographers, boutique studios, production companies, models, studio mechanics etc. you didn’t think they’ll stop at still images do ya?!?


MongolianMango t1_it946vw wrote

Art directors will be safe. Everybody else - it will be tough for them to survive.


PM_ME_UR_LOOFAH_PICS t1_it9ao61 wrote

I would absolutely love if it put Hollywood actors out of work


Frustrable_Zero t1_it8k932 wrote

Ai generated art should be labeled a genre in of itself so it can be compared to other ai art rather than real human made art. I don’t mind ai artists claiming they made something, as anything can be art. The big and warranted controversy comes almost entirely from the lens that if we suddenly accept this type of art without appraising the nuance of its creation that it could make the already struggling professional artists struggle even more. The only reason I could see for someone not liking the idea of differentiating the art into genres would be because they desire the esteem of an artist but can’t draw by hand, and want to think their entering prompts is just as talented. That’s my take anyways.


Frostivus t1_it8phuz wrote

So here comes the catch: what’s stopping anyone from claiming that it’s their human made art? As AI becomes more sophisticated, this will continue to be an emerging problem. They can make an art piece with AI, modify it a litttle bit so it looks imperfect, and make money out of it.


RobotCatCo t1_itatvkf wrote

It's very Iikely artists will have to be vetted in the future for communities and events that promote human work.


poobearcatbomber t1_it7tbp3 wrote

It may replace art (although that would be sad, it's part of the human culture) — but it will never replace designers.


Ijustdowhateva t1_it8i8ht wrote

Dalle-2 and Stable Diffusion are already more than capable of designing new things such as clothes and buildings.


poobearcatbomber t1_it8se1b wrote

I mean more product design. A biggest part of digital design is identifying user concerns and needs, that takes human intuition and emotion.


Ijustdowhateva t1_it8tedn wrote

For now it does, but seven months ago custom artwork also took human intuition and emotion.

Don't assume you're safe just because a thing is currently impossible.


poobearcatbomber t1_it8z7bh wrote

When we reach singularity, of course it will happen. That's a long ways off. You'd have to be able to think through decades of data that hasn't been collected yet.


visualspindoctor t1_it8kxwv wrote

What’s your definition of designer? Graphic design will be severely affected. You can already mask objects in Photoshop using AI for a while already, what used to take hours is now done in seconds. AI can now generate artworks in any artist’s visual style based on text input and spit out visuals that would take hours to produce in seconds (Check out Corridor Digital on YouTube on this subject). We are also seeing AI starting to take on video editing.


poobearcatbomber t1_it8siv1 wrote

Ya graphic design is art. It's traditional role will probably be mostly automated.

I mean more product design. A biggest part of digital design is identifying user concerns and needs, that takes human intuition and emotion.


MongolianMango t1_it94cpz wrote

You are getting downvoted but I agree. It takes different skills to understand "I want this" and then have an AI generate it, vs seeing what an AI generates and thinking "I want this"