>>3766412>I would appreciate it if you told me where I'm wrong in that case.Current AI mostly works as a blackbox, you just feed it tons of information in the hope it learns certain patterns and can achieve the same results. This is pretty useful with abstract information were it's difficult for humans to figure out certain connections and patterns, like in the shape of molecules and proteins, very useful in medical and pharmaceutical applications.
But with things like art it struggles simply because there are simple things that with some training most humans can perform well, like say drawing fingers, but this "dumb" AI cannot, it usually struggles with nuanced details, like fingers, male genitals, toes, nipples, ears, etc. And that's not even mentioning the problem it has that all AI art looks the same, as if it was made by the same author, it's difficult to obtain a different style unless you give it a base image, cause it just dumbs down all the info it gets and makes an "average" style of all the data it's fed.
Unless they start training AI in a more sophisticated way I cannot see it replacing artists in general, that's why I think that it should be used more like a creative tool to help artist get new ideas, or streamline the certain aspects like making shadows and coloring
