[sircastor]

> All of 'em. All of them will be safe. AI generated content is devoid of meaning…

None of ‘em. None of them will be safe. Humans ascribe meaning to works where there is none, and intent by the artist or an AI can be wholly immaterial to what people appreciate about it. Great works may come from AI but the greatness of a work is virtue of the work itself.

That said, just because a computer can do it doesn’t mean that a human can’t, or that people will prefer the AI work over the human’s. I think AI threatens jobs in a lot of places, but not necessarily in creative spaces.

[enhray]

No piece of art exists without context. With AI there is no context, no meaning, no relevance. A pretty image by itself is just that - a bunch of bytes displayed on device of your choice.

[Zababa]

> A pretty image by itself is just that - a bunch of bytes displayed on device of your choice.

Isn't this the majority of the industry? Sure, maybe there are a few artists that can do profound work with context, meaning, etc. But when you're doing book covers for airport novels, you don't need any of that. Or when doing a website with a few images? You need a result that's good enough at the cheapest price. AI generated content is great for that.

[marc_io]

There's always some sort of context, this is what allows something to exist in the first place. And even if the artist may define that the context is not “valid”, the audience can make anything it wants with it.