General Discussion

I never claimed it was always used creatively.

You, on the other hand, are claiming it is NEVER creative. I have described a way in which it can be used creatively as a substitute for the sketching process of ideation.

When you claim an absolute, as you have, a single example - such as the one I have given - disproves. it.

As for your specifics - you seem to be deliberately trivializing the process of using AI by focusing solely on the output of a single prompt, and minimizing how it can be used as a tool in the creative process.

As I noted earlier, generating dozens of sketches is a standard part of a typical part of the ideation process in beginning an art project - but for some of us the process of creating sketches by drawing by hand is not a simple dump of the image in our mind to the paper, because there is no image in our minds. It is a time consuming process which makes it nearly useless for the purposes for which it is intended at that stage of development. AI is a tool which can be used to quickly generate a concrete examples of the ideation. It is the ideation that is the creation - including reducing that idea to a a rough visual, whether by sketching or describing it textually (with or without using AI). Selecting images, from among the many generated which (1) are a close match to what was in your mind and (2) are artistically composed - or even which prompt ideas for different compositions are essential elements of the creative process - which draws inspiration from a number of sources.

If the images generated omits parts of the prompt that the artist wanted included, those can be painted in in later iterations or may be included (or not) in a final art piece which may be rendered entirely in the artist's hand. Or, by viewing the generated options, the artist may discover that the composition is more pleasing without those elements - again that requires a human creative assessment, whether those sketches are rendered by the artist's hand or by the artist using a tool (AI - or a camera).

Giving an artist a prompt and paying them to create a painting is more analogous to one of the many ways that generative AI can be used with virtually no creativity. But my point is that AI can be used in ways that ARE creative - whereas your position is that using AI in art is never creative.

There is nothing new in art - and re-envisioning or appropriation (of your own work or that of others) in a different media or using different tools is an essential part of the foundational skills taught in art school and used by the best artists. For example, dozens of well respected artists (including Picasso) have appropriated Manet's "Luncheon in the Grass."

Aside from anything I personally believe, I am currently in a NASAD accredited art school, roughly 1/3 of the way to earning a BFA. There are classes in which I am strongly encouraged - and some in which I will be required - to use AI. A session at NASAD's upcoming annual meeting focuses on the uses of AI in art education: