there is a lot of nuance in the discussion, but a lot of people just want a quick black and white answer. you can use AI to supplement other artistic projects (like using AI to create images for a comic you wrote), so i don't agree with the premise of the post
but i also don't agree with people who say that AI is just another tool. i think that it is a paradigm changing tool, that is going to make us have to rethink how we interact with art.
You can do wild shit that's barely possible with any other tools.
You can feed in images instead of text, or alongside it, and turn blobby sketches into photoreal renders.
You can describe contradictory nonsense and get a decent effort to square the circle.
You can keep saying more, more, more, and get exaggerations revealing an adjective's visual essence.
... but yeah, folks keep posting "woman naked anime" five hundred brainless images at a time. So few people are even making comics with this shit. Do they not understand each panel is its own little drawing? You piece together what you need. Story exists in the edit. Not even the people with a paragraph of "Remember, if you lose--" dialog in ev-er-y fucking image have figured out they can just show that now.
I was actually there. The backlash against digital art usually came from:
people who were otherwise already elittist towards one or two painting styles and media,
art gallery regulars (they can't sell JPEGs or PSDs),
poor people as back then graphics tablets were way more expensive and alternatives to Wacom also worse (the patents for their battery-free pens haven't expired yet), thus it was cheaper to buy paint and/or markers.
ChatGPT is great for yapping about patriotism for a school history essay, but It's completely unable to write anything useful or sensible. So I'll keep on doing things like art, storywriting and programming myself, but I'll use whatever cheats I have available for the pointless things I'm forced to do.
