> "The high end - the real talent - still stands out" It's a shame we made it economically infeasible to ever more produce or pursue. The value of even medioc

> "The high end - the real talent - still stands out" It's a shame we made it economically infeasible to ever more produce or pursue. The value of even mediocre art used to be that it still took a human somewhere hundreds or thousands of hours to reach that skill-level; and its existence indicate true care by the creator or commissioner. Heck, most historic art in cathedrals and historic art museums is crap by modern standards; they simply didn't have the tools and resources to reach high level in the craft. > "AI hasn't suddenly sent the quality of creativity off a cliff" No it has. Because there is no point anymore, no economic value, no recognition of the time and effort required. Spend 1000 hours to be called worse than AI. Spend 3000 more to be accused of using AI. Finally spend 100000 more, and finally reach above the slop; only not being paid a dime because AI is 90% good enough. Want to spend those final 300000 to finally get paid for your work? Or do you prefer working minimum wage instead. Just go to google and use their work as is, and crop out the signature. At-least then you still acknowledge that there actually is a value to creating imagery left. Welcome to the world of slop.