/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6876527
i did engage with the art argument in the other thread.
and surprise: it didn't lead nowhere, just like i said. also i could easily make that anon's definition fit AI even after changes.
you simply do not understand that your definition is absolutely specific to you. whatever it is. you will likely get slightly different or very different definitions from every fucker this thread.
you're clueless if you think you have a point here.

>AI doesn't provide anything directly usable
so don't use it directly?

> it doesn't transfer to the appropriate softwares, that "depends" is just a cope.
if it did transfer to the software then it would work, so yes, it depends.
there are demos of people using it already. or just for creating assets. it obviously depends on the workflow, the efficiency, the result, if it is worth it.
you literally tried it, unless you're lying. so you were trying to make that calculation, to see if it was worth it.

but maybe just like with your art take, you also don't understand that your specific usecase is not the same as everyone's?
what are you, a child that can't separate his own viewpoint from other people's?

>no, you're short-sighted and conveniently dismissed the rest of my sentence: the price for your "might" is too high to pay.
you think that because you don't use it? everyone won't? again this inability to separate your own view from others.

the "price" of AI flooding the market will be paid regardless. it has ZERO to do with how you use or reject AI.

>again, that's wishful thinking. every advancement in the arts for the past 3 decades point to that.
to what??
that people won't use AI to make games???

>you and every Aishill have failed to provide anything but that, excuse our skepticism after more than a year of proselytizing.
most people will admit that they have been wowed by AI before. will you?
oh i guess it's just "AI-slop".