OP disabled reblogs and then deactivated but I really wanted to recirculate this post because I think it nails a very important thing about AI vs the act of creation.
People that prompt AI are not making anything. They're putting in an order. I'm not sure if some of them even really read the words AI produces, or spend any time looking at the images, before slapping it up on the internet.
With the act of creation, a writer or artist spends time choosing every word, every brushstroke. You backspace or erase. You redo. You spend time thinking about every plot twist, every sentence. You draw and redraw that hand, that eye, that smile. You add details. You fix the grammar, make sure the sentence is clear and understandable.
Is this the right word?
Does the pose look right?
I can deepen the emotion if I emphasize this feature, that metaphor.
How can I better articulate this? How can I make this more meaningful? Create a deeper impact? Express the thing this idea makes me feel?
Making art is about taking thoughts and feelings out of your imagination and giving them a shape, so that other people can experience what you're thinking about, something they can see and interact with and respond to.
An idea is a block of wood, dense and opaque, and the making of art is carving away at that wood until everyone else can see the same image you have in your head. It takes time, and focus, and skill, and above all, it takes deliberate choices to make sure that the art is something true and real.
AI prompting is not capable of that. It doesn't live inside your brain and your hands and your eyes. It's not capable of translating such an abstract thing as emotions into something other people can see. It's shallow crowdsourcing of whatever has been fed into it. There's nothing deeper, no choices made. You ask for an approximation and that's what you receive. At best, you're another reader, another viewer. Passive consumption may be enough for you, but that doesn't make you an artist or a writer.