[bearjaws]

The way I have put it to my artist friends is in the form of litmus test: If I sat at a local farmers market selling this art, people would likely buy some of it.

If the delineation can only be made because you are an art major, or practicing artist, that is not really compelling to your own market.

We are on the third generation of these type of "AI" and they are already past the point where people would exchange cash for a print of this work. It is only a matter of time until people are using these to generate the general picture and then drawing it using their preferred medium (e.g. oil, watercolor).

[ok_dad]

Not a bad idea: use the AI to generate some sketch for the user, then the user finishes it. You might be able to teach art this way, slowly reduce the help the AI gives a student over time until they don’t need the AI anymore, or perhaps at some point they’ll realize they like coloring more than drawing and just keep asking the AI to produce sketches they can fill in with color, depth, and texture.

[lilcaul]

This time has come already. Many contemporary painters already leverage this. Some artist, like Jon Rafman, have trained their own models to generate digital imagery.

I do think this can be thought of more like a sketchbook or a camera at the end of the day, since real contemporary art collectors will not go for a print from Dall-e 2 or Midjourney so readily. Make a painting from it and if it's a decent rendition it will likely sell.