My issue with AI is people using it to replace their human expressiveness, e.g. their writing, or making images (for human consumption) with it.
AI is quite literally the opposite of creativity. By definition. It's a pattern matcher and generates the most likely correct output based on the input. That's why it's incredibly useful at creating random tools and being a capability enhancer/output multiplier. But if you are having a dialogue with me, I don't want to hear what some AI has to say, since that's not 'you'.
This is why generative AI will never replace the creative types, as the inherit value of the product is in the artists' intent in making a piece and their unique execution of it. If at any part of the process AI was used (including if they were to e.g. use AI to fact check their anatomy, or for concepts) then they've tainted their work - it's no longer an output of themselves, it's got elements that have been genericized to what an AI considers correct / perfect.
AI is quite literally the opposite of creativity. By definition. It's a pattern matcher and generates the most likely correct output based on the input. That's why it's incredibly useful at creating random tools and being a capability enhancer/output multiplier. But if you are having a dialogue with me, I don't want to hear what some AI has to say, since that's not 'you'.
This is why generative AI will never replace the creative types, as the inherit value of the product is in the artists' intent in making a piece and their unique execution of it. If at any part of the process AI was used (including if they were to e.g. use AI to fact check their anatomy, or for concepts) then they've tainted their work - it's no longer an output of themselves, it's got elements that have been genericized to what an AI considers correct / perfect.