Like anything art generators are a tool. One that can be very useful in a creative process, to convey an idea that is hard to present in text, to explore variations on a concept without having to draw something a hundred times, etc. It would be very difficult to argue that something like that has no valid uses.
However, as it stands the majority of the tools in place cost a fair bit of money to set up and run and so there is a high barrier to entry, and so the profits made from running them end up going primarily to those who are rich enough to set them up in the first place. Wealth inequality is a massive issue right now and so this sours a lot of people against these tools.
Many people also subjectively dislike AI art, which is a fair comment, as all art is subjective, but I don't think it necessarily helps anyone to debate over whether it looks good or not, that shouldn't be the issue here.
You could argue that the root of the problem is that most users of these tools will never consider the repercussions of paying for them, the people they are supporting are obscured behind many layers and it is impossible for the average consumer to know what the recipient will do with those funds.
Like any tool, these machines have created a new way for the already powerful to exploit the weak, it may be abstracted away behind closed doors but it is happening.
Just because something makes individuals happy doesn't eliminate the consequences. Most people would probably agree that cars are more convenient for sure, but they are highly inefficient compared to public transport.
You might not trust your government to manage public transportation effectively and that's completely reasonable, but is that the same as saying public transportation has no value and we should all just get cars and to hell with the consequences?
WinterBear @ WinterBear @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 15Joined 2 yr. ago
As long as you leave the centipedes out of it