zlacker

You're defining the word "art" in one sentence and then using a completely different definition in the next sentence. Where are these people who want art, as you've defined it, but don't want to pay? Most of the people you're referring to want visual representations of their fursonas, or D&D characters, or want marketing material for their product. They're not trying to get human expression.

In the sense that art is a 2D visual representation of something, or a marketing tool that evokes a biological response in the viewer, art is easy to automate away. This is no different than when the camera replaced portraitists. We've just invented a camera that shows us things that don't exist.

In the sense that art is human expression, nobody has even tried to automate that yet and I've seen no evidence that expressionary artists are threatened.

>>soerxp+(OP)
It's ironic seeing your earlier comment on chatgpt coding and then this. If anything is easier to automate, it's programming which can be rigorous and have rules while art really isn't, it's only "easy" for those who don't understand it, which is what the person is actually talking about.

You're in for a rude awakening when you get laid off and replaced with a bot that creates garbage code that is slow and buggy but works and so the boss gets to save on your salary. "But it's slow, redundant, looks like it was made by some who just copy and pasted endlessly from stackoverflow" but your boss won't care, he just needs to make a buck.