4 ms·

I'm not sure the complexity is sufficient to explain the decision, I think it's more the 'type' of work. Many things have insanely complex manufacturing process

I'm not sure the complexity is sufficient to explain the decision, I think it's more the 'type' of work. Many things have insanely complex manufacturing processes, but we never credit microchips to the factory. Spitballing, but I think we are conceptualizing creative work as somehow from other kinds of work, and that creative work loses its specialness (especially in the production of art and ideas) when augmented with tools. As someone who works in a creative industry, this is nonsense: all kinds of art are majority skill and work. In my opinion, it's the use of art that confers its value and 'specialness'. An image generated and shown to no one is not equal to an image generated and used as part of graphic novel.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
I considered how one might give a prompt (the same prompt) at two different times and get two different images which started me towards thinking about a similar result in the context of other image editing software (GIMP, Photoshop, probably other things I haven't heard of). > ... creative work loses its specialness (especially in the production of art and ideas) when augmented with tools. I think about image editing software which does "fuzzy" stuff. If I don't drag my mouse in exactly the same way twice, I will get different results, however slight, when editing images but the end result is always something "I created". I do tend to land on the side that these things use different skills, which opens up these arguments that "generative" is not "creative". I just see a lot of gray when I consider these things in detail. > it's the use of art This is a very succinct way to put it. Your last paragraph hits home.