If they could draw or make music, they wouldn’t need a robot to do it, and they clearly want to but don’t have the skills.

  • spankinspinach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    I agree. I think AI fills a creativity gap for average users - worth making quickly once, not worth pursuing an artist to make it.

    I don’t think AI will replace appreciation for human art, as human art is as much about soul as it is skill. AI can only ever do half the equation, but it’s the half that the average person doesn’t have and isn’t quite willing to pursue.

    I’m sure there’s an argument to be made that AI copying human art is watering down the value of art, but with how people recoil after finding out it’s AI, I think the bigger risk is never having it disclosed in the first place.

    • agent_nycto@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      23 hours ago

      I don’t think that it fills a creativity gap. It circumvents it. It’s a parasite. It gets in the way of you actually being creative and gives you a cheap dopamine hit instead of anything of substance. People learning how to do the things they want to do is what actually bridges that gap.

      • spankinspinach@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        I agree with you, for true art and creativity, absolutely. Maybe I mistook your post.

        My read of “want to pretend to be artists” was that the people who aren’t interested in learning those skills didn’t become less likely to do so because of AI, but may became marginally more artistic through its usage. Then I kind of sidebarred about soul and peoples’ abhorrence for AI art