Comment by anonymous908213

1 day ago

To be clear, as I said in another reply downthread, I think this particular project is creative, although creative in a fundamentally different way that does not replace existing creative expression. I also don't object to people doing "push button get image" for entertainment (although I do object to it being spammed all over the internet in spaces meant for human art and drowning out people who put effort into what they create, because 10,000 images can be generated in the time it takes to draw a single one). But "push button get image" is not making things yourself. I would give you credit for creating this because you put effort into fine-tuning a model and a bespoke pipeline to make this work at scale, but this project is exceptional and non-representative among generative AI usage, and "push button get image" does not have enough human decision-making involved for the human to really have any claim to have made the thing that gets generated. That is not creativity, and it is not capable of replacing existing expressions of creativity, which you've asserted multiple times in the article and thread. By all means push button and get image for as long as it entertains you, but don't pretend it is something it isn't.

To me, this project is the point. AI makes "push button get image" is now a thing just like photography made "push button get image" a thing. People complained then that photography was not art. But then eventually we mostly found the art of photography. I think the same will happen for AI stuff. When everyone can do it you need to do something else/more