Plainly, the people mad about the work required to write well and make great art who are justifying various artificial intelligence tools as shortcuts to that creative process don't value the labor inherent to it.
It’s the same people that don’t see the difference in spilling paint on their floor and a Jackson Pollock. If your standard is paint on a surface then yeah AI is fine, but if you want anything other than a spill it’s going to come from talent.
Replies
-
The problem with that is that "paint on a surface" is pretty much the bar for the vast majority of art. Like images in brochures, paintings in offices, clips in marketing reels, CGI explosions. These things don't need to be bespoke masterpieces. They just need to competently fit a theme.
-
Another thing I think happens specifically in the entertainment industry is that people in the industry want to be the talent and then they settle for being talent adjacent. It just encourages their insecurity to find a reason, any reason, why talent isn’t actually talent.
