“The output of generative AI is novel, to be sure, and it can even be enjoyable at times. But what it isn’t any longer is: valuable.
...
Art is valuable precisely because it is not easy to create.
And I am interested in art—we are interested in art, in any and all of its forms—because humans made it. That’s the very thing that makes it interesting; the who, the how, and especially the why.
...
The struggle that produced the art—the human who felt it, processed it, and formed it into this unique shape in the way only they could—is integral to the art itself. The story of the human behind it is the missing, inimitable component that AI cannot reproduce.
That’s what I and so many others find so repulsive about generative AI art; it’s missing the literal soul that makes art interesting in the first place.
We care about art because it’s a form of connection to other humans.
....
And no, I’m sorry, but prompting your way to the finished piece absolutely does not count—
—Not that it matters. I’ve gotten a little off-topic, but whether AI-generated art is truly art isn’t the point, and it doesn’t really matter anyway. The zone is too flooded, regardless.
AI-generated content is everywhere; it’s inescapable; and it’s therefore made itself less than worthless.
AI will never fully displace creatives, because the moment AI can mass-produce any kind of creative work at scale, that work will stop being worth producing in the first place.
It will be toxic; a trend well past its prime, already rotten on the vine.
The more gold you make, the less the gold is worth.
Good luck with that lead, though.”
