why is there even a debate that ai “art” is better? If you want ai to generate you an image of mickey mouse for an example, ai has to analise an image of mickey mouse and then spit it out. but before any of that ever happens somebody has to make that image first, and how do they do that? BY DRAWING IT!!! their arguement that “ai art is better” makes just as much sense as trump’s fee on wildfire smoke from canada (which it doesnt)
Who the fuck is arguing this?
AI art is faster, yeah.
AI art is easier/cheaper, yeah.
But I’ve never heard anybody claiming that it’s better than real art.
The CEOs are making this argument, the CEOs. There are corporate admins who are not Altman. They have made comments that we can now have “perfect” art, without human error. If you load up on podcasts looking at AI from various perspectives you’ll come across it.
These same CEOs say the youngest generations are too fast paced to read, they’d rather have AI to do it for them.
Regular people though? Probably not, but good luck sorting them out from the other 50% of comments on social media made by AI.
Go look at ai wars on reddit, there’s metric shit tons of clanker fanbois stating just that. They will even tell you that pencils are worse for the environment than their power and water gobbling data centres.
Errrm… No.
All correct, but would like to add that AI art is only cheap to the user, to the company it loses them milions of dollars even after initial training costs.