But in any case, the difference is huge between writing a one-sentence prompt and choosing and arranging a motive, arranging the photo setting & lighting (unless it's a Paparazzi snapshot), getting and paying the models, and so on. In contrast, some complex prompts may be judged as creative work, others are too simple to count as it. Changing the color, contrast and sharpness of an existing image also doesn't necessarily count as original artwork (but there some of Andy Warhol's work for differing opinions, of course).
Is it a licence (in practice) for a right to brand name or really the look? Could Forza make a model that looks almost exactly like a Ferrari but name it Furrari?
You know you're comparing the best example of photography with the worst example of using an AI, right?
A photographer may carefully study their craft and set up their shots. They can also be someone who puts no thought at all into taking an almost random photo. Same as someone can carefully tune the parameters of a model and refine their prompt until they get something which meets their exacting specifications, or they can be someone who grunts into a text box and clicks generate.
Playing around with Stable Diffusion running locally, comparing my output to the things held up as AI art removes any doubt in my mind as to whether the creators are artists. They are.
And AI generated art will replace a lot of 'decorative art', perhaps not art that hangs in galleries and provokes thought but that people buy because it looks nice on their wall, or as a screen saver, or t-shirt. If that means that there's less demand for humans producing this kind of artwork - there will be less people making it and fewer good training images.
In "high art" there's always been artists like Jeff Koons or Damien Hirst who direct other artists and technicians in the production of their artwork, or even apprentices painting large parts of a master renaissance painters work. With AI generated Art I can't help seeing a future where the brand becomes more important than the art - images created from the description/thoughts of Lady Gaga/Kanye West
This changes the design and availability of the software tools, the willingness for educational institutions to engage in these topics, and may even reduce the idea of a professional artist back to high art only (and we only need like 50 artists a year thanks).
And on the contrary, let's say you managed to push the state of the art, like you developed a more efficient fast fourier transform, now, how would you go about charging money for that?
The thing about computers/computing is that being better at a task usually gives someone a commercial advantage; finding them and exchanging money for the implementation seems fairly straightforward...
Thank god we caught that, as it never happens without NFTs.
However, I think the main argument is less about the artistic merit of AI generated art and more about the impact on the ability for artists to be artists when one of the means of generating a means for a living is removed from them. The elevator music and office artwork pieces were the means for income for many that allowed for the pursuit of more complex and long term projects. It was art insomuch as it was a creative endeavor, but I'm not sure how many artists believed that such pieces were their true expression.
A lot of that is now quite easily replaceable by anyone with a bit of time, a few source sample images, some keyword manipulation, and a computer as "simple" as a MacBook. Music generation likely isn't far off, and I think Meta even demo'd some AI-Video generator.
Automation should serve the people, and I have no doubt that at some point in a nicer future it will be a boon where we can have "nice things" and a lot of expression that wasn't previously possible. In the interim, there is a slew of people whose living means are heavily at risk. Patreon, et. al., aren't going to be enough to sustain every single artist, and like a lot of automation advances in the past, it will disenfranchise a rather large population. Besides that, not everyone can just draw furry porn for big commissions.
I think that this should concern a lot of tech persons also who imagine themselves protected from this as the human element of programming, technology design, etc, simply "cannot be replicated", but I think that projects like Co-Pilot are showing that there is a huge focus on replicating AI-Art in the same way, and similar to artists, a lot of programmers are having their code forced into the system to remove their agency, and with no compensation. The very act of producing something in order to sustain one's self is now also an act of self-destruction as the product feeds the AI more data.
I think the technology and the potential benefits of AI generated X is great and it's a step towards removing a lot of the petty grunt-work that is required to make the world work. The big question is how are we going to keep the lights on for people if there isn't a system in place to ensure that people can sustain themselves? Current social safety nets don't cut it, and socially there is still a huge opposition towards creating better safety nets.
I suspect that's why there is such concern over AI-Generated anything; the classic thinking and creative work that was a safe place from automation is now automated, and the world doesn't look ready yet to make the leap to societies that have automated away the need for menial tasks for everyone and provide everyone a pretty nice standard of living.
There is a place for AI art generation and there is a place for artists. NFTs were interesting in how they overvalued otherwise mediocre art. These models are interesting in how they bring down the cost and experience needed for making derivative art.
To me, the creativity still lies in someone being able to produce something meaningful. Art is about being able to convey ideas in a way that's impossible to communicate in some other way. An artist is someone that makes art. In that sense everyone who has generated art is an artist. Oversaturating the world with derivative art will only make novel things stand out more.
It's very hard to share a nuanced take on this topic because this argument has become framed in such a binary way. With something like medicine, the value of a doctor's opinion is very clear to a layperson. But when it comes to art, the value of an artist's perspective is not clear at all. However, I think making parallels to music makes it clear for me. AI generated music will replace elevator music at best, but I don't think the public fears ai models will ever replace musicians. At most ai will complement the art creation process. The "soul" and novelty in art will always come from an idea another human wants to communicate.