Hm, I may have an unpopular view on all of this but I see this whole topic from the other perspective.

Generating concepts in just a few clicks doesn’t seem problematic to me. Are you concerned that the ability to generate your ideas so effortlessly might diminish their value? Keep in mind that value is subjective—people assign worth to things based on various metrics such as personal connection, memories, or the time invested in them. While the way we assign value may evolve, the concept of value itself remains steadfast.

I also recognize the advantages that neural networks bring, like lowering the prices for exceptional art to almost zero. For instance, as a student and a passionate art admirer, I understand how difficult it can be to afford a quality piece of artwork. Yet, if you know an artist personally and are aware of the effort they put into their work, you might assign a higher value to their piece than to something generated by neural networks (and, by the way, I prefer to call them neural networks instead of “AI”). But if you do value AI-generated artwork, then why is that a problem?

Historically, people have been wary of change, but it is inevitable. In some ways, these tools could even help emerging artists, offering guidance in coloring sketches or refining details. Ultimately, neural networks are just algorithms—compositions of multiplications and additions followed by non-linear activation functions. They are neither inherently good nor evil; it's the people who use them that matter. I use neural networks as a tool to infer posterior distributions of parameters of interest, even if the data has a terrible S/N ratio. They are currently pushing many scientific fields to unprecedented heights. But back to your journal: We might witness a paradigm shift where the creative process is valued more than the final product. And if you are truly passionate about drawing, the essence of that passion will remain unchanged, regardless of any technological advancements.

What I’m saying is, you shouldn’t worry too much, my friend. The world has always changed and will continue to change—that is its inherent nature. Yet, it will always have a place for those who walk its path with open eyes and curious minds.

Actually, I have a little followup. I feel like I haven't captured the quintessence of my thoughts in the comment above.
The question is, why do people draw? And this is a crucial question. If you draw for attention, for appreciation from others, for comments that praise you and your effort, then I agree. You should be afraid in this case, because AI generated artwork will lower the relative quality of your work in comparison to the ensemble average of artworks found online and you may get less attention just because a well-drawn artwork is more appeasing than the work of a beginner. However, if you draw for yourself, if you draw because you enjoy the progress and how your ideas evolve on a piece of paper than this is something no algorithm can take from you. And if you get praise on such a work you can be sure people recognize your effort and appreciate the contribution to the community - that is what I meant that the concept of value remains unchanged. A hand-drawn artwork will always have something unique, and this uniqueness may even improve in the future.
The thing about artists, well, their subsistence consists of offering a service which takes a lot of time to master. That is their business concept and because not everyone can draw a e.g. Mona Lisa they can charge for it. And AI offers an alternative, a shortcut if you wish, circumventing years of practicing. Nowadays, everyone can be an 'artist' and put their ideas to reality. What is the artist/commissioner ratio here? 20/80? Would it be that bad if everyone has the possibility to get creative? And I wonder, and I'm actually not sure about this, if this is a good development or not. But time will tell for sure, and meanwhile I'm happy to argue about it.
And just to be clear on this: There is also no doubt that big tech companies certainly don't deserve the profits made by generative AI, trained on stolen artwork.

Thank you, my friend... :') The thought I had when writing that post was trying to empathize with why there is so much resistance in the creative space toward the very idea of generative AI. I definitely understand how it can hurt artists in many ways (and it's possibly important to think about having regulations that make artists feel safer), but I think, just as we both highlighted, in the end, it's just a tool (and a very useful one at that).

Another key motivator behind the post is guilt. I felt very guilty because I'd thought about commissioning a friend of mine for those concept arts, but the very existence of these generated artworks diminished that need...... But I've come to settle this guilt by just thinking about commissioning that artist for something else anyway, simply because I want to. ":]

I like your point about how the value of something can be arbitrary and subjective. And the question of why people make art, that's a super interesting thing to think about on its own.

I do agree, and I believe artists will not be replaced, not because of their hard skills, but purely because of who they are. It's not as philosophical as it seems, it's just the fact that an artist will always have the choice to make their work an extension of them, whether it's because of their past, their fleeting thoughts and feelings, or their dreams and aspirations. I think that's also why people can tell if there's a 'soul' in a piece of art, it's the signs and signatures of the humanity behind it that we can pick up on and resonate with.

And who knows, maybe AI will evolve one day to make art that has coherent signatures of humanity in it as well, but that’s only because it’s exactly from someone in the AI's training set. It’s the success of the AI to create an emergent humanity from the bits and pieces of humanity that got fed into it. It becomes its own emergent identity at that point, but still, not you, even if it has bits of pieces from you. And who’s to say that we ourselves aren't operating as ‘emergent identities’ as well?

Hm, I don't know the deeper implications of everyone being able to use generative AI either. I think the key question again is how, and what, are people going to use those tools for?

Well, to end things off, for me, I create art to communicate, or, in the more soulful way to put it, creative expression and storytelling. Especially when I understand my own limitations, the tools I use to carry a message rarely matter to me. I just want to tell stories with what I've got.

Well, boring discussion, we agree on too many points. :)

To end it off on my side as well: I'm glad you enjoy being creative, and I enjoy seeing you being creative. Your gallery has more worth than the whole set of AI generated artwork together because I know someone put real thought in it. You are telling a story based on your life, your experiences, your feelings. And this makes your gallery valuable beyond words. Speaking of which:
Wow, reading your last story felt really immersive and emotional. I was immediately drawn into Sirius's world and felt his anxieties. The ending, especially, left me with a strong sense of hope and connection. It's beautiful in its unique way, and I'm looking forward to the next chapter :>.

I know the journal is old, but I noticed it only now and I hope it's ok to write a comment.

First of all, I can relate, in my own way. Out of curiosity, I tried generative AI too, and there are things in which it is better than me, and even things in which it is better precisely because it is AI. I don't even mean characters, but landscapes and surreal structures, especially the ones in a dream-like style, like this and this for example. I was even accused of using AI despite the fact that I was drawing like this long before AI even existed, lol. But I know this feeling that something which was so difficult for me to create can now be quite easily created with AI, and AI can be even better at this.
It feels... weird. I can't even say that it makes me sad or something, I just don't see AI as a competitor that can harm me; real people caused me more harm and already badly influenced my unhealthy relationships with art, whereas seeing a robot that creates a picture based on a description is just weird. It's fun, scary, confusing, intriguing. It won't stop me from drawing my own things though, even if there are things in which it is better and faster than me. Perhaps the fact that I had already gone through my personal "death of art" influenced the fact that I met AI rather indifferently, even with a bit of an evil irony.

So, I don't feel anger or hatred, rather a mix of curiosity and... fear. And speaking of fear, it has little to do with art or AI on its own, as I'm not really affected being a hobbyist as well. I'm more afraid of the huge amount of scammers, fakes and abuse. Fake texts and articles, fake photos, arts and videos, as well as slander and blackmail. Like this, for example. Just imagine someone who really wants to hurt you and harm your life and will do this to you, be it your photos or art.
What doesn't make the situation any better is that AI is being actively used for all sorts of scams that are turning the Internet into an even bigger trash dump than it ever was. Many thousands of low-quality AI images and videos that are used as a kind of brainrot farms to earn money, and thousands of bots everywhere, which are now even harder to identify because current technology can be quite good at speaking like a real human.

I don't know how this will end or what it will evolve into, but... I think AI is a cool and powerful technology with so much great potential, but humanity is not ready for it. And it also has so much potential for abuse that it is terrifying. But the only thing I can personally do is to just sit and watch what happens next.