That’s lots of misconceptions.
But I guess you get a low effort JPEG after expending 33Wh, so i guess that’s great…
I was always told art is subjective, and I can get images I consider very high quality, and more importantly I can make images of what I have in mind for e.g. my D&D campaigns. It’s truly transformative.
E.g. Cobbe GIovatta is a dislexic orc journalist that runs the most popular tabloid in Waterdeep. This image needed 349W for 39s. That’s 3.78Wh or the equivalent of boiling 6.02g of water. You’d need a lot more energy if you did it with a traditional photoshop workflow, say 200W for 3h totaling 600Wh/955g of boiled water.
GenANI assist SAVES energy.
Compare with E.g. running an hairdrier for 30 minutes at 1500 W and that’s 770Wh or the energy to boil 1194g of water. Your household activities use lots of energy.
Yeah… revolutionary for making a few people and companies very rich while taking away jobs from others, stealing IP and violating copyright, hallucinating information, being very bad at relatively simple math, having a negative impact on education and learning, etc etc.
GenANI assist steals NOTHING. My Cobbe Giovatta never existed before I diffused it. It’s my derivative artwork and it stole nothing from nobody. I also believe in open source, so when I make good homebrews, I share that with other DMs so they can use them in their campaigns.
That’s how creativity works. E.g. Anybody can look at Warhol artwork, and sell derivative work inspired by that and it’s perfectly legal. Everything human make is derivative, that dragon you make is a remix of millenia worth of dragon lore.
Using a GenANI assist tool to make Warhol cats make no difference. More to the point, art has a long, and I mean LONG history of bullying new tools. Literally every new tool has been bullied before being considered mainstream art. Here is my favourite quote from the 1800s about photography. A machine where you click and it makes a copyrighted image of somethign you do not own:
Charles Baudelaire wrote, in a review of the Salon of 1859: “If photography is allowed to supplement art in some of its functions, it will soon supplant or corrupt it altogether, thanks to the stupidity of the multitude which is its natural ally.”
“At the other extreme, there was outright denial and hostility. One outraged German newspaper thundered, “To fix fleeting images is not only impossible … it is a sacrilege … God has created man in his image and no human machine can capture the image of God. He would have to betray all his Eternal Principles to allow a Frenchman in Paris to unleash such a diabolical invention upon the world”[12]. Baudelaire described photography as “art’s most mortal enemy” and as “that upstart art form, the natural and pitifully literal medium of expression for a self-congratulatory, materialist bourgeois class” [13]. Other reputed doom-laden predictions were that photography signified “the end of art” (J.M.W. Turner); and that painting would become “dead” (Delaroche) or “obsolete” (Flaubert) [14].”
