It’s you that isn’t listening. The coming change is inevitable. I’m not denying that people’s jobs are impacted. I’ve seen it myself.

You can have your petulant attitude. It’s akin to a horse trader sulking about Henry Ford. It doesn’t change a thing.

I’m not really sure what tech bro means, and I’m not a consultant. I’m not sure why you are taking such a hostile position. It’s a conversation and I’ve said nothing to personally attack you.

This is just a conversation. You seem like maybe you have some trouble regulating your emotions.

Creatives have always been a servile class supported by wealthy patrons. The world of high art will always be this way, and will remain immune to AI or commoditization (see my earlier comments about craft and hand-made as luxury choices).

I’m not sure what alternative possibilities you see.

This is not my vision. It’s the vision of science and technology from the literal beginning. “Mastery of nature” and breaking free of the curse of labor so that man can live in leisure.

I agree that dystopia is more likely than utopia.

marshallbrain.com/manna1

The vision has always been to reduce human workloads. I agree that vision has not been realized; however, generative AI, agentic AI and robotics are at a point where they are beginning to do meaningful “work” on their own.

That said, the process matters most to the artist. I stand by my statement that the consumer of art is really who determines everything (meaning, value, etc).

I agree that posting AI generated imagery and calling it something else is misleading and shady. Hence my saying we aren’t disagreeing.

I have also not once claimed that AI imagery is inherently good or that it’s comparable to human art. It’s just recombining stuff it’s trained on.

I still own a design consultancy, but the majority of our work is software/experiential design. I do have perspective on this topic, but perhaps I am less emotional about it because I seen tech evolution as an inevitability.

I am a creative; I’ve been involved in movie productions, have designed the covers for best-selling novels, and have done too many magazine illustrations to count.

I didn’t say that the “replacing work” perspective was mine. I said that’s a driving force behind its evolution.

AI image generation is a novelty. There is no real value compared to the automation of work people don’t actually want to do. In a sense, AI is more socialistic because it will theoretically free up people’s time to do the things they enjoy.

We are not disagreeing with each other.

I don’t think AI is inherently capitalistic. There are a lot of uses apart from image generation. That said, in a capitalistic system, consumers determine the value of the product, which makes my last sentence even more true.

AI will be disruptive to the arts and much, much more. I enjoy creating, but it is not my job. Making a living with art will get increasingly difficult.

There will always be demand for human craftsmanship, but it will become even more of a luxury, similar to mass production vs. hand-made.

Do you know what a “composite” is? That is a specific – not vague – answer. It is several photos combined to make a single image.

Art exists to evoke emotion, spark thought, and inspire wonder. Its value lies in the connection it creates, not the method behind its creation. Art isn’t defined by its process—it’s defined by the experience it gives the viewer.

This is a composite of several images, and you are free to enjoy it.