You're viewing a single thread.
"AI made art effortless"
FTFY
It also substantially raises the "quality" of the low end effort which is a pretty big deal, whether you consider that a good thing or not.
I think it's great for things like a client conceptualizing what they want which in the past could be difficult and very labour/time consuming. Take that concept to a real artist and it's pretty win-win.
I've used it for conceptualizing what I want, because I do my own art and also have aphantasia.
this is why i tend to think about AI images like a camera, it's not creative but it can make things that look nice, and then we can take inspiration to make something creative just like when we walk outside and look at the per definion uncreative physical landscape.
Cameras aren't creative?.. Guess we need to tell all the photographers and filmmakers out there...
yeah, it's the person using the camera who is creative.
AI is a camera without a user, thus incapable of creativity just the same as a mountain isn't creative.
We're in sync then, your initial comment made it sound like you thought any camera work was not creative by default. As I said to the other guy I should've used a different phrasing to clear out the confusion around tool/artist.
Cameras are just tools, jusr like brushes. They are not creative, the artists you mentioned are.
You're entirely right, I should have phrased it differently.