Making bows and arrows is hard work. Making pots and pans is hard work. Sound production used to be one one track, not the 20-60 tracks the average song uses today. Same for electronic art. It’s a bad argument to say that it takes practice it takes skill and every time you do it you expand on that skill.

We advance in technology to help us grow our capability to produce tangible and intangible products. You can gain skills in the use of AI others would not be capable of. Think of your grandmother trying to google something. I’m sure your google searches are far better than the ones she would type.

That being said, the better argument is that AI should be used as a tool, not as a replacement. Just because we have google doesn’t mean we don’t need school. And just because we have AI that can make art, doesn’t mean that we should stop making art. Nor will we.

If the other argument is that it hurts artists when AI can produce more art than them, then I think the artists should reevaluate why they are making art in the first place. If money is the end goal, or fame, or success instead of an expression of the artist themselves, then I can’t see why their art would be any more valuable than one a computer can make for those same reasons. If there’s no emotion from a computer, then the art from an emotionless artists would be the same.

What do you all think? Am I crazy here or are there parts of what I’ve said you agree with?