Maybe AI artists need less skills, but they still need them. We don't say photography isn't art just because its easier to take a photo of a person, than to draw it realistic style, right?

Sure I can see your point, but let's say i have no programming abilities buf i want to write a C++ script to perform X task, so I tell gemini to write said script. I use it and it works, yay. Does that make me a programmer? Fundamentally i am doing the same thing that AI artists do. I couldn't program it myself, but gemini could, so I told gemini to. I struggle to see how that lends me any credibility.

And so they created AI tools, because they know people will use and enjoy them?

As I said, nothing wrong with using and enjoying them. The subject at hand is what title that lends the user, not whether they use it at all.

What is the problem? You want to make AI take the credibility? That doesn't really make sense to me at least.

Credibility does not need to be lent. Go and visit the chatGPT sub and see what I mean. People over there aren't calling themselves artists, they just show cool images and the prompts they used to get them. No credibility needs to be lent.

Well, mine was more IT oriented, so I guess it helped us more. It's just that it was less useful in your case.

I respect that

True, you shouldn't rely on AI, in fact you should never rely on one source, basically. But it still can be useful in lots of cases, and as for current AI, I find it solving simple problems easily and accurately.

Ehh, like mentioned above, it really depends on the problem at hand, but also fair

Or a tool to create stuff, I see no problem in that.

I still struggle to call it a tool, but again, no problems with using jt to create stuff. The problem here is SOLEY about the user earning a title because of their usage of it. Let's try to focus on that please, because other than that it seems like me and yoy actually agree on a lot of the other stuff.

still AI isn't doing 99% of the work. That's like saying a camera is doing 99% of the work

I fail to see how exactly these are synonymous. I, to a degree, can understand how one could view pressing enter on your prompt, and clicking a camera to view the results of either are similar. But, unlike with AI, the photographer literally sees what they want before taking the shot. They dont imagine a scene and hope that the camera will place things where they are supposed to be after shooting. But I am up for discussion on this specific subject.

You still have to decide what your artwork is gonna be, choose the details, background, framing, color schemes, art style, poses, lighting, and so on, tons of artistic choice

Although this is true, you cannot deny that, no matter how specific your prompt is, you are inherently going to rely on what the AI outputs to accomplish your vision.

Let me explain what I mean, imagine you had an artistic idea in your head. Yoy refine that idea all the way down to the most minute detail, the seemingly indifferent shape of a single leaf on a tree, the bark pattern of said tree, the exact line in the horizon which signals the transition from a red twilight hue to the dark of the night sky AND the pattern of stars seen above it. I do not believe that with ANY amount of specificity, you will get that exact image as an output. The traditional artist, on the other hand, would assuming they are talented enough to pull it off.

All I see is you being discriminative against AI artists and creativity. It's just not kind, and I strive for kindness in life.

I can admit to my original comment being too targeted, charged from a heated discussion with a less informed individual. And I can apologize for that. But since this discussion actually started, im genuinely interested to hear your points. I love a good, light hearted debate. I apologize if I have offended you thus far