I would rather not make an account just to rebuttal this. But the problem with AI-Generated content is that it's not the same as a human practicing for years, studying their favorite artists from how they start the process; from how they sketch to how they draw anatomically and to the end result. Keep "end result" and "the process" in mind as you're reading this.
For this, we're going to create two people. One is a Japanese artist, let's say he goes by the name Kojiro on the internet; and the other is an American artist called FluffyFoxLover. Both are entirely fictional and my bad if I accidentally just named two popular artists. (But I mean, come on. FluffyFoxLover? That's a really obvious name to go by.) Kojiro has been practicing art for several years now, and is quite popular on Twitter. FluffyFoxLover likes the kind of work Kojiro makes, and decides to study his art for a day to get an idea of how he draws furries. They take a bunch of Kojiro's works, and uses basic shapes to understand any patterns on how a character is drawn in his art style. This is how I, and a lot of other artists learn to draw a certain way.
Now let's create another fictional character, let's call him DogeCryptoBro1337, Doge/Crypt for short. And let's say he paid a lot of money to get access to some of these high-quality image generators that aren't Craiyon. Crypt sees Kojiro's work, and thinks, "Hey, I want my fursona drawn in that art style. Maybe the AI that I paid early access to will be able to make something out of it." And so he punches in a few descriptive words that will end up creating said image. This time, it took the AI about 5 minutes or less to produce images that fit the description. All it did was look at images, found patterns, copied those patterns, and did none of the hours of work that FluffyFoxLover had to do.
There's a stark difference between the two. FluffyFoxLover took time out of their day to understand how Kojiro drew, and all DogeCryptoBro1337 did was tell a computer to do something. I was a bit offended by how you said it would lead to the same snobbishness that traditional people said digital art isn't real art; but is it really the same as two people fighting over what medium they use to make art compared to someone asking an AI to take thousands of artworks (likely sampling from artists that did the same thing that FluffyFoxLover and Kojiro did) and copy only the patterns it sees to fit the criteria of (what can only be assumed as) an essay to describe an image that Crypt wanted?
Art is not about the destination, it's about the journey to get there. I don't follow the idea of separating an artist from their art, because there is barely any distinction from the two. There is a lot of work that goes into Kojiro's work, and he too studies his favorite artists, or even what is taught in schools, the same way FluffyFoxLover has to.
Yes, technically and fundamentally the idea of artists looking at what other artists do and learn is close to an AI being trained to draw based on different images. But it's only if said AI will also: start with a sketch, understand anatomy and can draw different body types, species, hair styles, etc. Then it proceeds with either inking and then flat colors, or for digital painting proceed with the coloring and then rendering for both. Then yes, it's fundamentally the same. But taking shapes, patterns, and taking the images as well so they can be stitched together into something else is not the same as the process that non-AI-Generated art goes through. Their end result is the same, but ultimately the art being made by an artist will always have more substance to it because there was more effort put into it. (If you want to argue that there was also effort put into programming the AI, remember that in programming your best friends are CTRL + C and CTRL + V. The only effort put into training the AI to create images was keeping the electricity up in the server room. That's it.)
I do not put my faith into AI-Generated Content as being revered by artists, because it really is taking away their jobs. Their whole life's work even. I'm sure you would be offended too if say you've been working as an artist, doing commissions to survive for years. And then all of a sudden some stuck-up nerd in America creates an AI that's perfected your art style and can create images that you would need hours upon hours of work to even make.
I would rather not make an account just to rebuttal this. But the problem with AI-Generated content is that it's not the same as a human practicing for years, studying their favorite artists from how they start the process; from how they sketch to how they draw anatomically and to the end result. Keep "end result" and "the process" in mind as you're reading this.
For this, we're going to create two people. One is a Japanese artist, let's say he goes by the name Kojiro on the internet; and the other is an American artist called FluffyFoxLover. Both are entirely fictional and my bad if I accidentally just named two popular artists. (But I mean, come on. FluffyFoxLover? That's a really obvious name to go by.) Kojiro has been practicing art for several years now, and is quite popular on Twitter. FluffyFoxLover likes the kind of work Kojiro makes, and decides to study his art for a day to get an idea of how he draws furries. They take a bunch of Kojiro's works, and uses basic shapes to understand any patterns on how a character is drawn in his art style. This is how I, and a lot of other artists learn to draw a certain way.
Now let's create another fictional character, let's call him DogeCryptoBro1337, Doge/Crypt for short. And let's say he paid a lot of money to get access to some of these high-quality image generators that aren't Craiyon. Crypt sees Kojiro's work, and thinks, "Hey, I want my fursona drawn in that art style. Maybe the AI that I paid early access to will be able to make something out of it." And so he punches in a few descriptive words that will end up creating said image. This time, it took the AI about 5 minutes or less to produce images that fit the description. All it did was look at images, found patterns, copied those patterns, and did none of the hours of work that FluffyFoxLover had to do.
There's a stark difference between the two. FluffyFoxLover took time out of their day to understand how Kojiro drew, and all DogeCryptoBro1337 did was tell a computer to do something. I was a bit offended by how you said it would lead to the same snobbishness that traditional people said digital art isn't real art; but is it really the same as two people fighting over what medium they use to make art compared to someone asking an AI to take thousands of artworks (likely sampling from artists that did the same thing that FluffyFoxLover and Kojiro did) and copy only the patterns it sees to fit the criteria of (what can only be assumed as) an essay to describe an image that Crypt wanted?
Art is not about the destination, it's about the journey to get there. I don't follow the idea of separating an artist from their art, because there is barely any distinction from the two. There is a lot of work that goes into Kojiro's work, and he too studies his favorite artists, or even what is taught in schools, the same way FluffyFoxLover has to.
Yes, technically and fundamentally the idea of artists looking at what other artists do and learn is close to an AI being trained to draw based on different images. But it's only if said AI will also: start with a sketch, understand anatomy and can draw different body types, species, hair styles, etc. Then it proceeds with either inking and then flat colors, or for digital painting proceed with the coloring and then rendering for both. Then yes, it's fundamentally the same. But taking shapes, patterns, and taking the images as well so they can be stitched together into something else is not the same as the process that non-AI-Generated art goes through. Their end result is the same, but ultimately the art being made by an artist will always have more substance to it because there was more effort put into it. (If you want to argue that there was also effort put into programming the AI, remember that in programming your best friends are CTRL + C and CTRL + V. The only effort put into training the AI to create images was keeping the electricity up in the server room. That's it.)
I do not put my faith into AI-Generated Content as being revered by artists, because it really is taking away their jobs. Their whole life's work even. I'm sure you would be offended too if say you've been working as an artist, doing commissions to survive for years. And then all of a sudden some stuck-up nerd in America creates an AI that's perfected your art style and can create images that you would need hours upon hours of work to even make.