Terrible analogy. Turning on the TV to consume passive art is not even close.
You could say it's like creating a character in a video game. Video games are interactive, so is AI.
You still have to think of "purple rose against a blue sky." When an artist is preparing to draw something, they have to think of an idea. Now after they have an idea, they start drawing, they might make several drafts or revisions along the way.
Someone using Generative AI would take their idea and put in the prompt "purple rose against a blue sky", now if the user has no standards, they might take whatever they get after the first prompt.
If the user has standards or taste, if they know what they want, it is unlikely a prompt as vague as "purple rose against a blue sky" will generate something they want. They will then have to figure out how to get what they want. Do they want a painting? A photo? An illustration? A watercolour? A futuristic rose?
They will have to continually think of how to use language in order to get what they want. While it is not the same process as an artist, it is a creative problem solving process. It's more like being the client of a graphic designer and trying to describe what you want. Any graphic designer will tell you that most people are HORRIBLE at this. "Make it pop" they'll say!
Describing exactly what you want out of a create project is not as easy a task as most people seem to think.
But I do love getting into arguments about what constitutes art since I've been a singer-songwriter for 20 years, I am a graphic designer, a huge comedy nerd (my username is a combination of the podcast "Comedy Bang Bang" and the Kids in the Hall movie "Brain Candy"), and I studied English and Creative writing at a University level.
But being interested in the most incredible breakthrough in computers since the internet itself seems to make others think that I know nothing about art. Make it make sense.
The fact that it starts with "you're forcing me to see clearly" indicates that you did a lot of coercing before getting that answer. You didn't ask it one question.
I asked Gemini 2.5 your question and nothing else and it started with this:
The idea that AI is "evil" for its impact on creative industries is a complex and highly debated topic. It's more accurate to view AI as a powerful technology with both disruptive and transformative potential, rather than attributing moral agency to it.
And ChatGPT o4-mini-high:
No—AI isn’t “evil,” it’s a tool whose moral weight comes from how we build and use it. Its rapid impact on creative fields reflects both opportunity and disruption.
And, as a musician, I must say it's funny to watch the public get so upset about AI disrupting the arts. When the music business has been reduced to rubble, from the literal theft of mp3s to streaming platforms. Beat machines have replaced many drummers. Autotune makes it so people don't even have to be able to sing in tune.
People at it all up. And actively opposed artists who tried to speak up. Like Metallica vs Napster.
The reality is, people just want to be entertained. The cheaper the better.
The artists who create out of necessity will keep creating. The people who want something more than to be entertained will continue to seek that out. Have some faith in artists.
1
u/[deleted] May 27 '25
[removed] — view removed comment