People hate AI compositions, especially from a publication. There are many valid uses for AI image generators. My nieces and I have a blast coming up with stories and illustrating them with generated images. It is even better when they hallucinate an extra finger or ear, we can work it into the story.

I also like to use AI as a sort of filter on pictures that I took. Make a photo look like a drawing, for example. It is also incredible for UI mockups and saves me a lot of work.

Honestly the blowback against AI in "art" feels overblown to me, but I'm not someone that's actually appreciative of art in general (I don't visit art exhibits etc)

However, to understand their viewpoint you only need to think about what art originally meant: it is something with which the artist tries to convey something. It is - in is purest form - an expression of another person.

This is somewhat offset by "art" as a salaried job. But it's worth noting that this profession has generally been seen as a necessary evil to make ends meet.

Now AI art comes along and generally removes the humans expression from the equation. To the artist, this is like a complete perversion of what they consider core to their identity.

And artists have always been am incredibly loud minority - hence you hear their complaints a lot. Complaints which are understandable, but honestly are exaggerated. Esp. If you consider where AI will go from here over the next 10 years.

Goodbye doodling and tapping into the power of childhood imagination. A horrid crutch.

Right. AI is probably the biggest "umbrella term" we've yet had to wrestle with as a society. AI art as a concept is mostly hideously soulless and anti-human, a disgusting abomination that is rightly reviled, and that's all totally orthogonal to the fact that it's mostly very ugly.

But it's absolutely lovely and heartwarming when my brother uses it to make environment art to go with a D&D campaign for his children.

It's hyper-polarized.