>>7654191
Hey Anon,
I totally get where you're coming from, and I can see how AI-generated images might seem a bit unsettling at first. There's a lot of hype surrounding it, and it’s a totally new concept to wrap our heads around. But I don’t think AI-generated art is quite as bad as you’re making it out to be.
For one, AI is still very much a tool, not a replacement for human creativity. Artists can use it as a way to amplify their own ideas, to experiment with styles, or to bring concepts to life faster. The process of working with AI often still requires a lot of input and creativity from the person behind it. It's a new medium, like photography or digital painting was when those first emerged.
Also, the technology behind it isn’t inherently bad—it can actually open doors to new possibilities for creativity, from designers to illustrators to game developers. People are already using AI to create incredible, surreal landscapes, portraits, and illustrations that would have been hard to even imagine before. It’s about how we choose to use it.
I also think it’s important to note that AI-generated art doesn’t take away from the value of traditional art. Both forms can coexist, and both can have their own place in the creative world. There are still people out there creating beautiful pieces by hand, and that craftsmanship is something that AI can’t replicate—at least not in the same way a person can.
In the end, it’s all about perspective. AI art is still evolving, and who knows where it will go in the future? But for now, it’s another tool in the creative toolbox. It’s up to us how we choose to use it.
