| I use any tool available to create art and express myself, so I does not really matter what you think of it. Art is a very subjective thing anyway and we can argue for hours what "art" really is. But here are some of my thoughts regarding your comment, I think they apply to many others in this thread as well. >UNLIKE other tools, AI makes creative decisions. No other tool has done this If you use any other tool or technology (for example certain oil paint, canvases, sculpting material, motif, etc.) that also implies a creative decision. >its primary purpose is to take away the reliance on artists That is not true. It might be the purpose that some people ascribe to it, but it is a technology & a tool. Humans decide what its purpose is, its purpose is not inherent to the technology itself. You can use Imagen to create very personal and individual self-expression. With open source models that you can tweak and train yourself there are many possibilities to get an individual result.
I guess you only looked at things like Dall-E and came to the conclusion that this would replace artists. The same thing people said about photography aka "This is just a technology to replace portrait painters/landscape painters etc." If you learn more about how Imagen works you will understand that there are many possibilities to make it your own and create meaningful self-expression. >even if "normal human art" exists, it will never gain much traction or commercial viability. There is 0 indication of that. Why do you think that? FWIW the current art "market" is what makes me sick, so I am happy for any tech or idea that demolishes it and makes room for something new and creative. |