After watching a few videos of a supremely egotistical YouTuber (who shall not be named) rattle on incoherently about the use of AI for real art, a new realization has dawned upon me.
1) While the finishing style of such digital illustrations can look nicely rendered, as if by a competent oil painter, those same digital illos. look strangely similar and blah. I was impressed at first, but now it already bores me.
3) What will make your art superior to AI is the “cool” factor. Those little bits of imperfect brilliance that sometimes happen? It’s the opposite of the Uncanny Valley effect, where things look close but not quite right. Instead, It’s where art look real on a deeper level, as if it was more real than real, and the image speaks to the viewer.
4) I realize that this is not an answer for most artists. If we could produce bits of brilliance every time we were in the zone, that would be awesome. Sadly, brilliance comes when it’s ready, and on its own schedule, not ours.
5) Here’s my point. Only people can channel genius and make truly great things. AI cannot channel anything but what has already been feed into its training set. AI has no zone or flow state. AI cannot make a deep, artistic connection or illustrate deeper, universal truths.
6) AI is a great invention, and it will make human lives better in so many fields, especially medicine and science. However, I don’t think it can ever really replace human ingenuity. Copy, represent, or rehash, maybe, but replace it, no.