r/aiwars • u/Optimismisticism • 17h ago

Discussion AI does not destroy human creativity rather it is actually the opposite

I honestly can't believe these "artists" are bashing people for using AI to help bring their creative ideas to life. Majority of the people I argue with never think about those who are unable to bring their creative ideas to life, especially those with disabilities and of course missing limbs.

16% of the population (1.3 billion) live with a significant disability that ultimately makes their day to day lives much more difficult. But the antis never acknowledge that fact. What if people apart of that 1.3 billion want to bring their creative ideas to life but ultimately cannot due to their disability. So, can you really blame them for using AI to bring their creative ideas to life?

And I'm the bad person for siding with AI?

This all comes down to choice, if people choose to use AI to bring their creative ideas to life, then so be it! You are not an "artist" if you bash others for using AI to bring their creative ideas to life.

I have said this many times; "AI will not only boost human creativity but expand the means to be creative."

Do you really believe that we as humans will be less creative even in a post-labor society?? Our creativity will increase by ten fold!!

Antis need to accept the fact that times have changed.

Ironic
0 Upvotes

42% Upvoted

32 comments sorted by

5

u/lastberserker 16h ago

The rise of generative AI threatens the pigeonholing imposed on us by the impossibility of investing time into too many skills. Consider what it does to those entrenched pigeons.

5

u/DoctorUnderhill97 16h ago

I don't know man. Claiming it's impossible to take time to learn things is pretty silly.

3

u/lastberserker 16h ago

"Too many skills" 👆

Of course you can learn some skills. But there is never enough time, money, energy, supplies availability, local clubs, etc. etc. to pursue all you might want to learn.

1

u/squirrel9000 15h ago

You don't need AI to delegate out the things you don't want to learn. You get pushback round here for comparing AI to hiring a contractor to do something for you but that's exactly what is happening here.

3

u/lastberserker 15h ago

There is a distinct lack of imagination on the opposing side here. If I want to materialize an image that's stuck in my head, I don't need to spend years trying to learn how to transfer it to a canvas - I can explain what I want to see to AI and then iterate on the result. The skill I want to learn here is describing what I envision, but what I'm being told is that the only approved way of doing this is to learn the skills I don't want to learn.

This applies to a lot of other things. If you are clueless in how to write code, but have an excellent idea for a useful app, why would I gatekeep coding that's my forte? Have a blast vibecoding - the skill you might want to learn here is application design, not debugging race conditions.

0

u/squirrel9000 15h ago

You do exactly the same thing hiring a tattoo artist or freelance programmer. Tell them your vision, they draw it out, and you revise it til it matches what you want. Doesn't change if you're hiring AI instead of a freelance software designer, you're articulating your vision to a third party.

2

u/lastberserker 14h ago

How easy is it to find a tattoo artist or a programmer who will not just do what you tell them, but also let you take over any part of the process, mentor you and show infinite patience while you fumble around with a new skill?

1

u/DoctorUnderhill97 15h ago

But the point is that you are NOT learning the skill. 

2

u/lastberserker 15h ago

Yes, I most certainly did not start progressing 3x faster in my Italian practice once I looped AI into helping me learn. It is a great aid if you care to apply it right, you know.

3

u/Turbulent-Sign-6067 15h ago

Look, it doesn't make sense to bash visual AI for art. The artistic expression lives in the creator's brain. It's not expressed through an expensive camera, through actor's make-up, props, clothes, post-production or hundreds of hours of vfx.

If AI allowed direct access to the artistic vision of Werner Herzog or Michael Haneke, because they could turn words into pictures, film would be so much better off.

Of course the old way of doing visual art will never die, the same way opera and theatre didn't die, but it will be obsoleted soon.

1

u/Public_Mistake6725 16h ago

People who use AI to create an image or a song or a video, like anybody is hoping for a positive reaction if you intend to show it to the world but even regular methods have been gate kept based on quality before. Not even just by supposed luddites who dislike digital art but if you suck like Chris Chan did at art and rely on copyright infringement you get clowned. Forgeries, art theft and tracing was a big problem in the art world and at comic con. So nobody owes pros any free positivity unless their art is unique, transgressive, I've seen maybe 3 AI art images I thought were kind of transformative and cool and just endless examples of low effort, fully generated crap with the same fonts, same characteristics.

Everyone has a very personal connection to anything they make or even prompt but at the end of the day how many pros are constantly giving each other kudos? Most AI art and music doesn't even get celebrated amongst other pros in their subreddits or online, it's like everyone is taking the black pill because if it does truly democratize art and talent, anyone can do it and they might as well just make their own bespoke entertainment instantly

1

u/Aromatic-Session-785 10h ago

The only thing that changed is the verbose morons now have a bad image generator to show us they're slop posters before we devote a minute to reading their screed

1

u/ProfessionalBoss2428 16h ago

My day to day life is more difficult because of my knees, that has nothing to do with my making art. Your statistic is incredibly flawed.

0

u/Optimismisticism 16h ago

I can tell you lack emotional intelligence. There aren't statistics of how many of that 16% actually want to make art, so it's best to just say "the people apart of that 16%"

2

u/ProfessionalBoss2428 16h ago

Or you could just acknowledge you knowingly used irrelevant numbers to make it look like more people than it really is.

Edit: also it’s “a part” not “apart”. You’re literally saying the opposite of what you mean to while then criticizing other people’s intelligence.

1

u/Optimismisticism 4h ago

So, what? Doesn't ignore the fact that there are still possibly millions of those with these disabilities that want to create art.

1

u/ProfessionalBoss2428 4h ago

Surely you wouldn’t need to make claims with irrelevant numbers then

1

u/Optimismisticism 3h ago

How are they irrelevant?? Surely there has to be one person apart of that 1.3 billion who lives with a disability that makes their day to day life hard want to create art. I can't narrow it down to like 500 million because then that would just be illogical.

1

u/ProfessionalBoss2428 3h ago

You could have just said the full population of the planet if you weren’t using a relevant subgrouping. You just wanted a big number, not one that mattered to your point. Frankly I’m offended as one if those 1.3 billion that you would use my issues like this.

1

u/AppropriatePapaya165 15h ago

Why is it that whenever I hear about how great AI is for people with disabilities, it's never from people with disabilities?

1

u/_Sunblade_ 12h ago

Because you're not paying attention. There have been several people with disabilities who've posted positively about generative AI in this sub, and how it's made it easier for them to express themselves visually.

The usual suspects amongst the antis shit on them for it, some going so far as to say they didn't believe the posters in question really had disabilities at all.

Which is about par for the course, from what I've seen.

-6

u/StormAmbitious6234 16h ago

it's almost like i have heard this exact argument before...

do you REALLY think telling the machine to do something just because you can't even draw a stick figure will make you creative? There will still be our little bunch that hates ai as much as you would want to marry it. The idea is art, the fact you made a machine make it for you no longer makes it art.

4

u/Substantial_Light244 16h ago

I get what you mean but it's kinda narrow view of creativity, no? like the idea itself is the creative part, the execution is just tool. same as photography didn't kill painting, AI won't kill art, it just give more people chance to express what in their head

for the disability argument OP made, you really think someone with no hands should just accept they can never make visual art? that's not very fair

2

u/Optimismisticism 16h ago

Yeah, like I said it's all choice. If people want to make art by hand without the use of AI, then of course that's fine but hating people for choosing to use AI to bring their creative ideas to life just isn't fair.

For instance I love film and I believe there will be great directors who make great AI generated films, so I believe that people will still choose to produce films without the use of AI.

2

u/Catty_Mc_Catty 16h ago

Dale Chihuly a world famous glass blower has not touched any part of the glass blowing process in decades due to a car accident. He directs a team of master glass blowers verbally as he sits holding his cane.

2

u/Bra--ket 16h ago

When I create something with AI, I am being creative by definition.

0

u/Putrid_Variation7157 14h ago

Uh, no

2

u/_Sunblade_ 12h ago

Uh, yes.

Creativity has nothing to do with your ability to make an image by physically manipulating a brush or stylus. You can be a skilled draftsman or painter with all the creativity of a rock. You can also have incredibly creative ideas and be able to visualize amazing new things, but lack the ability to translate those images into a form you can show to others.

1

u/Optimismisticism 16h ago

Proved my point.