to be fair I wouldn't call people operating AI Image generators creative people. At best they're people curious about the technology itself, anybody willing to learn and do it for the sake of being creative does it themselves.

▲

altmanaltman 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think you're romanticizing art generation a bit. A lot of it operates like a normal working job, there is no magic "truly creative genuis", a lot of working artists treat it as their jobs and if a tool helps them get their job done, it is helpful.

Not every creative profession is something where you create something you're proud of or you own. You're often just one part of a massive machine working on a project. It's a bit hard to keep sticking to the "creative noble artist" mythical vibe when it's a 9 to 5. And it's not fair to call them not creative just because you feel like it.

	▲	klabb3 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Both ”creative mythical noble artist” and ”creative work is just work” are unhelpful strawman arguments. One is elitist, the other is reductionist. Creativity is neither a property of who you are or what you do. It’s about how you do it. It’s closer to a mindset of curiosity, wonder and play. For example, many programmers have a need for creativity within coding, but don’t feel they get it at their 9-5 job, and instead work a side project (like FOSS, indie game) because it’s a more creative experience. The point is: same person, same activity yet one is more creative than the other. The art/artifact itself is not creative. It’s the process that’s creative. Building a car can be creative. Buying a car is not. That’s not romanticizing and gatekeeping people who don’t have time to build a car. It would be genuinely misleading to equate those things.

▲

tychez an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

This is just complete nonsense.

You really think creative people are not interested in new forms of visual expression?

This as simply being ignorant of art history.