Even worse is implying that we should replace all creative processes with AI. I honestly don't understand what world you'd like to live in. One where humans do almost nothing interesting and instead ask computers to do it? That sounds depressing.

Not the op, but perhaps to put more charitable interpretation:

- if you're going to try to solve an actual challenge, improve on something, truly consider the design and purpose and limits and compromises and propose a different approach, brilliant

- but if all you're going to do is make a random somewhat pretty twist on existing thing, without actually considering the use, the purpose, the engineering, the what's and how's and why's, then... I'm kinda with him. What value did you add,that prompt to midjourney "create a spiral piano" wouldn't have?

I do understand the sentiment. I personally see value in human creation but I sort of get why others wouldn't.

I'm somewhat shocked by this overwhelmingly positive reaction to AI replacing human creativity so I may be overreacting? It just doesn't sit right with me — trading human subtlety for raw efficiency — but to each their own.

We'll see where it shakes out when it comes to art.

Even in myself I'm finding curious emotional responses: I'm now growing less interested in some of the more synthesized / formulaic types of music, and more interested in live performances / recording with real instruments. For visual art that is art, that to me usually needs some human emotion, message, story, path. For "art" that is placeholder or functional, yeah a lot of that may get replaced by AI.

My point to this particular article is though, if their sum contribution to the world is the analogue of:

1. Short one-sentence prompt to AI that's basically "piano, but tear-shaped"

2. 37 paragraphs of self-aggrandizing meaningless prose that actively deceives on the accomplishment and status of the thing

Then it's not "human creativity" as far as I'm concerned, or at least not one that I want to actively encourage (and in fact, as I mentioned, I want to actively discourage / not partake in).

In other words, I'm not saying AI should be doing the kind of things exemplified in that article rather than humans. I'm saying I don't want to see / partake those kinds of things [if not quite "they shouldn't exist":], and it's partially because they don't contribute any human creativity, as far as I'm concerned. That's very different from "not seeing value in human creativity", so I think we may have misunderstood each other there?

I find myself feeling some of the same things you describe. I don't really relate with the synth/formulaic music part, to me that's just another interesting form of human expression. But I guess that just goes to show how we all see the line in very different places; I think even my own opinions on this are sometimes inconsistent with each other.

But you're right, we probably misunderstood each other there. You definitely won the argument though :)

It doesn’t replace it, humans can always do art for self enrichment and fulfillment, just like the vast majority of artists were doing before image AI hit the scene, including the vast majority that thought they could exchange time for food and shelter this way and did not.

Creativity has nothing to do with professional aspiration and entertaining the humans for transactions.