How many people have a print of “Starry Night” or “Girl with a Pearl Earring” in their house vs how many have a hand-painted on canvas edition (original or copy)?

At some point, a significant increase in resource efficiency improves certain aspects of many things, even art.

People watch The Simpsons despite it being farmed out to animators in Korea and using digital tools for the composition of the frames. Nobody is complaining that Matt Groening isn’t hand animating every frame.

I used ChatGPT to make myself a picture based on a concept of a story I’ve been kicking around in my head for awhile. That picture made me so happy. It just wouldn’t exist twenty years ago.

The efficiency we’re seeing now is in moving from idea to execution. I think that’s a good thing. The thing we’ll see now is curation of taste. People with good taste are going to be the ones to succeed in a market where there are no barriers to entry. I can understand why that would upset people who spent years cultivating a skill.

Thinking that an AI generated image is somehow more efficient to make than a high res photo followed by a print is a bit odd to me.

> At some point, a significant increase in resource efficiency improves certain aspects of many things, even art.

I'll agree with that incredibly-hedged claim, sure. I'm not against efficiency at all.

As before though, it's not the only consideration. It would have been even more efficient to give all the people with a copy of Girl with a Pearl Earring a blank canvas, or even nothing at all, but that would be missing the point.