That's nice, but what's wrong with the much more simpler argument: AI art is bad because it's shitty, boring art made by shitty boring people?
It's not that scary; art is not necessary, people only do it because they want to. Like, sure, we can make test tube babies, but people still like to fuck, you know? People who think they can shortcut the creative process are completely missing the point, because the creative process is the point, not the finished product. Hell, thinking of the fruits of the creative process as product (or content or whatever) is the problem, not really AI. People who want to do things will do things, and by virtue of actually doing the thing (How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice!), will make better art; people looking for a shortcut between "idea" and "thing (they can sell)" aren't doing the work, so they not only make a worse finished "product", they are also the least likely to realize their "product" sucks. Appropriately, by treating "art" as "product", they create both bad art and bad product.
This is also a rebuttal of GR, because labor replacement may be largely successful, but what we're arguing here isn't labor. It's what you do when you're not laboring. I'm still just boggling at this idea that anyone thinks using technology to do our leisure activities for us is an idea that works. It's like an episode of the fucking Jetsons where Rosie the fucking robot maid paints in the background while Judy Jetson vacuums; you make the fucking robot vacuum while you fucking paint. That's what the fucking robot's for! Ironically, your pointing out "the means of its production are not held by the masses, nor do they have the technical skills to operate them" is the argument I'm making, though in this case "it" is "art", not "machinery". Like I keep saying, the people who want to make "art" with machinery don't have the technical skills to create art. Either they're looking to subvert the creative process in order to sell a product (in which case they're boring and evil, and will make bad art), or they're looking to subvert the creative process in order to not have to do the work to develop the technical skills necessary (in which case they're boring and lazy, and will make bad art).
Which, unfortunately, doesn't make your point in the first paragraph any less true. I don't know if you actually meant it as an accusation that a lot of furry art is "boring, bad and lazy" and often "product first", but, if you did, fair. And, oh boy, I can be cynical as shit and say, "boring, bad and lazy" has never stopped the public at large from adopting it. But, you know what, let's end on a positive note; in general, while AI has been able to "create" (when properly curated) interesting static images, they have not been very good at sustained creative works. What I'm saying is writers are probably fine. Even, say, painters are probably okay, because, as I keep pointing out, most of the value there is the process (I mean, if photography couldn't kill that artform, what makes us think fucking AI will?). Graphic designers and illustrators might be in trouble, maybe? Going more furry, while, due to being more along the "illustrator" mode of art, e621 has a grand total of 22 pieces tagged as "AI generated", so I'm just not seeing a lot of interest. Like, seriously, I'm a guy who routinely puts in the same couple of tags in the search bar just about every day; shit might as well be procedurally generated, but it's not. I'm just not that worried about it.
That's nice, but what's wrong with the much more simpler argument: AI art is bad because it's shitty, boring art made by shitty boring people?
It's not that scary; art is not necessary, people only do it because they want to. Like, sure, we can make test tube babies, but people still like to fuck, you know? People who think they can shortcut the creative process are completely missing the point, because the creative process is the point, not the finished product. Hell, thinking of the fruits of the creative process as product (or content or whatever) is the problem, not really AI. People who want to do things will do things, and by virtue of actually doing the thing (How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice!), will make better art; people looking for a shortcut between "idea" and "thing (they can sell)" aren't doing the work, so they not only make a worse finished "product", they are also the least likely to realize their "product" sucks. Appropriately, by treating "art" as "product", they create both bad art and bad product.
This is also a rebuttal of GR, because labor replacement may be largely successful, but what we're arguing here isn't labor. It's what you do when you're not laboring. I'm still just boggling at this idea that anyone thinks using technology to do our leisure activities for us is an idea that works. It's like an episode of the fucking Jetsons where Rosie the fucking robot maid paints in the background while Judy Jetson vacuums; you make the fucking robot vacuum while you fucking paint. That's what the fucking robot's for! Ironically, your pointing out "the means of its production are not held by the masses, nor do they have the technical skills to operate them" is the argument I'm making, though in this case "it" is "art", not "machinery". Like I keep saying, the people who want to make "art" with machinery don't have the technical skills to create art. Either they're looking to subvert the creative process in order to sell a product (in which case they're boring and evil, and will make bad art), or they're looking to subvert the creative process in order to not have to do the work to develop the technical skills necessary (in which case they're boring and lazy, and will make bad art).
Which, unfortunately, doesn't make your point in the first paragraph any less true. I don't know if you actually meant it as an accusation that a lot of furry art is "boring, bad and lazy" and often "product first", but, if you did, fair. And, oh boy, I can be cynical as shit and say, "boring, bad and lazy" has never stopped the public at large from adopting it. But, you know what, let's end on a positive note; in general, while AI has been able to "create" (when properly curated) interesting static images, they have not been very good at sustained creative works. What I'm saying is writers are probably fine. Even, say, painters are probably okay, because, as I keep pointing out, most of the value there is the process (I mean, if photography couldn't kill that artform, what makes us think fucking AI will?). Graphic designers and illustrators might be in trouble, maybe? Going more furry, while, due to being more along the "illustrator" mode of art, e621 has a grand total of 22 pieces tagged as "AI generated", so I'm just not seeing a lot of interest. Like, seriously, I'm a guy who routinely puts in the same couple of tags in the search bar just about every day; shit might as well be procedurally generated, but it's not. I'm just not that worried about it.