AI art, good or bad?

@limesnlemons44 IMO, AI art has one use and that is to help me visualize my idea. I use it to form custom reference images but that is about it. It takes the fun out of the art process and creates effortless and most likely plagiarized ideas. But I have found that if I type in an idea and then just use it as a point of reference I can more easily get to where I need. However, I have only used it once for this purpose as imagining what you want to make is part of the fun. So, in short, AI for art is a novelty and may not really catch on except for some cheap (actually expensive, like 15 a month) thrills.

I agree with you @limesnlemons44, and  I think that AI could never put the emotions into art that a human can

Bad because it has already started reducing demand for illustrators & graphic artists. I predict that in three years--if it takes that long--all the jobs in today's creative industries will be gone. People will still make art, of course, but no one will be able to make a living by it. This will add to unemployment claims later, which will affect economies in modern nations like ours. Given that we've had spiking inflation since 2020 when the fedgov started printing money like it was going out of style, this development will not make many people's situations any easier in this decade...to put it mildly.

• Unfortunately it's inevitable. I am firmly convinced that with the initial exception of the dot-com revolution, modern technology has been eliminating more jobs than it has created overall. The reasons aren't hard to figure out...consider: AI art generators
• don't get sick,
• don't play hooky from their jobs,
• only require a machine with sufficient computing power to operate inside of,
• don't even need a proper office space,
• don't need food or sleep,
• & will never try to unionize with others of its kind for better working conditions.
• Also, such programs can do most of what a human artist can do in a tiny fraction of the time; as these programs evolve, all creative professionals will become obsolete.

If you're an illustrator or graphic design guy, you had better start thinking about what else you can do for a living.

@limesnlemons44 I agree that AI cannot bring the "soul" to its work like a human being. However, AI is "bad," in my opinion, due to copyright concerns. Who owns it and has the right to reuse or commercialize it? Or how do we deal with trading and mass production of an AI product that was "created" in the first place by a description from a human being? We need more time for the legislature to catch up with artwork by AI regulations.

I saw an interesting perspective on how ai can influence art, especially among those just starting out. If you are just starting out learning to draw for example your results might leave you disappointed, but it takes time to learn and develop your artistic skills, but if you go to ai and tell it what you want to create it can rapidly give you the level of results you want and demotivate you from taking the time to learn that skill.

To me one of the most valuable aspects of art is the experience of creating it, not the finished project. Even if the result is the aspect that others will value, I find that for the artist the process is just as, if not more important. 

Perhaps with time the way in which we use ai will become like paint or pencils and simply a medium through which we create, but I do hope that it will not come at the expense of learning other mediums.