> There's no creative control. It's disposable novelty. That's all. People literally said this about the camera. I mean, I admit I’m playing just a touch of d

> There's no creative control. It's disposable novelty. That's all. People literally said this about the camera. I mean, I admit I’m playing just a touch of devil’s advocate here. As an artist on occasion, I’m not going to be wowed by the person who asks DALL-E for a landscape image. OTOH, I’m certain there can be creativity and skill put into the prompt text, based on time spent using DALL-E. And my main point is that the system is the interesting part, not the pictures. > It’s not just that it’s trivial, it’s condescending in a way that useful art tools aren’t. This opinion comes down to pure narrative though, right? If you see any given image and don’t know how it was made, there’s no way to judge it as somehow condescending. I’m certain DALL-E could spit out an image that you would not be able to identify as AI generated. If I didn’t have context, I’d have no idea the robot hand thing was DALL-E (and I have no idea if it spit out one of it’s training images, or if it mixed together multiple images.) You mention utility, and I don’t know what you mean by that. Could you elaborate on why you claim AI art like DALL-E is not “useful”? It’s pretty clear to me that DALL-E could generate clip art or ad art or stock photos quite easily, and would potentially replace humans that also pump out schlock.