>>16611
NTA you've been arguing with, but you can't say AI is just like a PS brush. It's fair to compare it to photography, but that was never a tool the way that a paintbrush vs. airbrush or oil vs. acrylic is, where learning the tool builds up your own art. Instead it was a wholesale replacement for realistic commercial illustration, and figure drawing has
never recovered. Artists are right to be concerned here, because AI is a slop tool: it's better than the bottom of the market, but doesn't reach the top. As a human you need to suck at art for years while you learn techniques like the box model, brush strokes, and color theory, picrel (and I'm still learning). Good artists will certainly use AI as one more source of inspiration, just like with photography, but you can't pretend there's no reason for concern.
And if you take the position 'fuck em', realize that's what happened when low-end "B movie" funding dried up, and the result was that now it's mostly rich nepo babies who pay their way through the sucky learner phase get into Hollywood, and
still don't gain the full skillset, which is why most movies suck now. Corpo AI is worse, since the big companies mostly ignore "don't train on me" stamps and can copy the style of anyone not fully paywalling their art, and at a pretty good skill level (ex. Ghibli filter). That cuts off not only semi-pro learners but mid-market artists, at least for anything that builds skill up to the top tier. "AI stole my SFW art so I'm forced to draw hideous furry inflation fetish porn to make ends meet" is not a win, but it's the direction things are headed in.