Consistently hammering the “tool” misnomer obscures the vast difference between fully automated synthetic content generation based on other people’s work and personal expression of your own imagination, by your own skills.
It obscures that the overwhelming majority of the value of image generators is expressive content tapped from the underlying works. And that the overwhelming majority of “creation”, including the bulk of aesthetic and compositional choices, is automated away.
Thus very deliberately kicking the door wide open to the Ghostwriter Fallacy: the vanity trap of feeling entitled to the total outcome of a process, regardless how tiny your own contribution, so gleefully and successfully exploited by genAI marketers.
Johan, you and I agree on virtually everything (as far as I have seen and read). I understand your point. And I agree with it. Where is the line between AI as a "tool" used to extend creative possibilities - and, instead, a "tool" that essentially does it all (or at least most of the actual "creative" process)? And absolutely - as you have seen with all my writing - I 💯 % agree about copyright infringement by non-consensual training etc.
If publishers lose consumers because the AI slop they offer is boring, they will surely come back to talented creatives, who can then raise their fees because they make a difference.
If the publishers don’t lose consumers because their consumers are fine with AI generated output then clearly creatives don't offer any added value and should find themselves another context where their work actually matters.
I agree with you. Most consumers, I believe, will be fine with AI generated mediocrity. But a certain subset will appreciate the humanity and originality that flows from placing the Artist at the top of the creativity food chain.
On "tools":
Consistently hammering the “tool” misnomer obscures the vast difference between fully automated synthetic content generation based on other people’s work and personal expression of your own imagination, by your own skills.
It obscures that the overwhelming majority of the value of image generators is expressive content tapped from the underlying works. And that the overwhelming majority of “creation”, including the bulk of aesthetic and compositional choices, is automated away.
Thus very deliberately kicking the door wide open to the Ghostwriter Fallacy: the vanity trap of feeling entitled to the total outcome of a process, regardless how tiny your own contribution, so gleefully and successfully exploited by genAI marketers.
From https://johancb.substack.com/p/the-ghostwriter-fallacy
Johan, you and I agree on virtually everything (as far as I have seen and read). I understand your point. And I agree with it. Where is the line between AI as a "tool" used to extend creative possibilities - and, instead, a "tool" that essentially does it all (or at least most of the actual "creative" process)? And absolutely - as you have seen with all my writing - I 💯 % agree about copyright infringement by non-consensual training etc.
Agreed.
If publishers lose consumers because the AI slop they offer is boring, they will surely come back to talented creatives, who can then raise their fees because they make a difference.
If the publishers don’t lose consumers because their consumers are fine with AI generated output then clearly creatives don't offer any added value and should find themselves another context where their work actually matters.
I'm on Substack for a reason.
I agree with you. Most consumers, I believe, will be fine with AI generated mediocrity. But a certain subset will appreciate the humanity and originality that flows from placing the Artist at the top of the creativity food chain.