I actually used to have the exact same position when stable diffusion came out.
All my artists friends where criticizing it and I was thinking it was some form of Neo-Ludditism that they were following. Why not embrace progress? No one is stopping them to not use it but if it helps lower the barrier of entry isn't that great? Surely generative AI could be used to enhance of the workflow of an artist?
Oh, how I have been wrong. In reality it has only been used to replace artists. To devalue their work. It has not place in a artists pipeline.
I think the use of generative AI or at least of generalist LLM's is something fundamentally different than artists embracing new media and new processes. Like digital drawing is still roughly the same process as drawing on paper. The process is largely the same and most skills carry over. You are still in control. Using a prompt to create images is something that is not drawing.
I see the argument but can’t agree. To me it feels like pining for all of the lost typist jobs when word processors appeared.
Artists aren’t entitled to a job any more than I am; to the extent they (or I) do work that is easily replaced, by AI or offshoring or anything, that’s a career risk.
Those same tools enable artists to be more productive, more creative, more capable. The people suffering are those who are attached to the tools they learned with. We in tech know that’s a bad long term idea, and it is surprising in the arts. But on the whole, human creativity and overall output of great art will benefit from this change.
Your initial opinion was the right one. Too bad you let yourself be bullied into changing it by the vocal minority of online personalities. Artists that are not influencers have already embraced AI.
If you enjoy writing music your way, great. But I strongly disagree that it’s a mistake to enable people to approach it differently.