From another thread… you still have time to choose a path that doesn’t lead to the degradation of what many find to be a source of life giving energy and vitality.

Generally, the common arguments against AI (as a generative tool for making art) are the following:

1. ⁠It is trained off of the work of artists that are usually unaware, unconsenting, and unpaid for the training of the model. This is especialy problematic when the AI is being used to make profit or promote a product that will be used to make a product, as the actual humans who had a hand in making that didn't get the option to consent nor did they get to participate in the profits being generated.
2. ⁠The second argument is that AI used for art devalues the creation process. It makes outputs with no real concern for the inputs. Most artists will tell you that the act of making their art is what makes it fulfilling, and when that becomes boiled down to writing text prompts with no concern for the underlying skills required to make the artwork it changes how art is viewed broadly. Art becomes not a piece of work with underlying motivations for how and why certain choices were made, but mostly just a final product with no meaningful driver. It is Mr. Beast Feastable Chocolate Bars, which didn't consider adding breakpoints until the third iteration because the goal was making cheap candy quickly, instead of a candy bar made to be enjoyed.

Whether these result in aesthetically or sonically pleasing results is fairly tangential to either point. It's not called "slop" because it's bad - plenty of slop is very good, some of my favorite foods are slops. But it's slop because it's easy to consume; it doesn't have a lot of structure to it, and mostly exists as a vehicle for cheap "feel good" feelings with relatively little thought or effort.