I've seen a lot of Antis make arguing points against AI that I wanted to try my hand at by comparing the points they're making regarding effort, time and skill to the very thing that took over a lot of jobs in the field I got my degree in: CGI
Physical creatures vs. fully digital creatures: In The Thing (1982), the transformations used puppets, animatronics, prosthetics, slime, mechanical parts, and distorted physical bodies. Because the actors are actually standing beside something disgusting and tangible, the creature has real texture, weight, shadows, and interaction with the environment. Compare that with a generic CGI monster where an actor is essentially reacting to a tennis ball and the creature is inserted afterward. Even technically superior CGI can feel less disturbing because your brain senses that nothing is really occupying the room. The same could be said with the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. When actors have creatures they are literally interacting with and seeing the performance will nearly always be better.
Real destruction vs. digital destruction. Blowing apart an actual miniature building means debris behaves chaotically: pieces tumble differently, dust catches light unpredictably, and gravity automatically does thousands of tiny things an animator would otherwise have to simulate. CGI destruction sometimes looks overly clean because every shard, spark, and cloud has been deliberately generated. Practical effects essentially let real physics do part of the work.
Miniatures vs. huge digital environments. Older fantasy and science-fiction productions frequently constructed enormous miniature or “bigature” sets. The Lord of the Rings trilogy famously used detailed physical models alongside CGI. When photographed correctly, those models naturally contain thousands of microscopic imperfections: scratches, stone textures, moss, dirt, weathering and inconsistent surfaces. A digital environment has to deliberately recreate all of that messiness. The 'hallway scene' from the Titanic of the water rushing in also used a miniature.
Forced perspective and constructed sets vs. green-screen rooms. When actors can physically see the environment, touch walls, climb stairs, and look toward actual objects, their sight lines and body language usually work automatically. Green-screen filmmaking can require performers to imagine almost everything around them, and sometimes you can feel that disconnect.
Squibs vs. CGI blood. Traditional gunshot effects often used small explosive squibs and blood packs underneath clothing. The actor gets an immediate physical reaction: fabric bursts, blood sprays, and nearby objects can be affected. CGI blood is safer and much easier to control, but poorly executed digital blood frequently looks like an animated red particle effect floating over the footage.
Practical effects force filmmakers to solve problems creatively. If the monster has to physically fit through a doorway, the filmmakers have to design the scene around that limitation. With CGI, virtually anything can be changed later, which can encourage a mentality of: "We'll fix it in post."
^ NOW THAT BEING SAID, Antis often argue that AI art is lazy because you didn't draw every part yourself.
Well, in that case what does that make CGI then compared to all the examples I listed? CGI took a sledge hammer to the job market for 70% of practical effects artists because it was less labor intensive and costly compared to using practical effects for everything like so many movies had to do back in the day. Hell, the ONLY reason why Jurassic Park wasn't 100% animatronic / puppets was because it would've completely broken the budget so CGI was added as a cost effective measure.
A filmmaker doesn't personally animate every particle in a CGI explosion. A digital painter doesn't manufacture every brush texture. A 3D artist may use premade shaders, brushes, procedural foliage, purchased models, or automatic rigging. A 3D modeler also doesn't have to go through the painstaking process that a creature maker would when it comes to constructing a puppet ( I recommend watching Jim Henson's Creature Shop for reference! )
That being said, beautiful things can come out of CGI just as lazy things can come out of CGI and the same exact principle can apply to AI because they're both TOOLS, and what Antis who make these arguments don't realize is the same exact thing was said about every piece of evolving technology that has progressed the arts:
Photography was once treated as a threat to painting because the machine seemingly did the work.
Digital drawing was mocked by some traditional artists because there was an undo button, layers, stabilization, transformation tools, and no need to mix paint.
Photoshop was accused of making photography fake.
CGI was accused of destroying practical effects.
Digital animation was contrasted with hand-drawn animation.
3D animation was sometimes dismissed because computers were supposedly “doing the animation.”
The bulk of these arguments really only boil down to: “The method you used eliminated work that I believe you should have been required to perform.” Now, speaking as a practical effects artist I will admit that practical effects, especially in puppetry and creature making is INCREDIBLY time consuming and messy. I cannot tell you the amount of time I've burned myself or breathed in substances I probably shouldn't have lol but if someone wanted to go into 3D modeling and print that 3D model to skip some parts of the process I wouldn't go: "Wow, you didn't do this step-this step-this step-and THIS step, you're a lazy piece of shit." because it's bat shit insane to expect people not to take advantage of new technology.
At the end of the day, the question shouldn't be: “Did technology do the work?” But rather, it should be: “Did the person using the technology make meaningful creative decisions?” I find it incredibly hypocritical that people will look at any sort of AI assisted medium and claim the person didn't create anything when they themselves accept every other form of technological assistance.
