There's something really funny about using an algorithm that predicts the next most likely token to generate unpredictable adventures.

If I was writing dialogue, I already know exactly what I want to say, that's why I'm writing it in the first place. Sure, some people might like that, but I never feel devoid of inspiration because I consider the greater narrative of a project.

Why would I want to ask the AI for ideas? The joy is in the process of having it my way by my own hand, word-for-word, pixel-by-pixel, note-by-note.

If other people enjoy another method, fine, but you are invalidating the traditional and highly enjoyable method. Creativity isn't about efficiency or whatever. This is why people leave AAA to go indie, and have it their way, not to whatever the budget is or what the shareholders or managers want, but because they have a vision and are naturally creative, making a labour of love they know every detail of because it's in their head.

I'd rather support the artists and pay the thousand bucks because it's all a part of the traditional process.

Indies already release anime on YouTube, Netflix, TV et al, and have done for decades.

Art isn't about the output for most artists. Art is about the process. People consume art. Artists enjoy the creative process and having it their way.

I hate attention. I haven't had a photo taken in 13 years. I've stopped all interviews. I mostly work behind-the-scenes on documentaries and games these days. I don't even care about if a project makes a return, we do it because we love it and enjoy the process.

There is no "best", art is subjective. Art isn't even a competition. Crass and vulgar. Are you sure you actually understand art and aren't conflating it with monetizing it in a business context?

I don't know if it's a symptom of Hollywood's sequelitis and nostalgia-wank, but the idea that consumers should be happy to consume art generated by a program that has simply taken the last 200 years of pop-art and averaged it all together is depressing.

When I read this it sounds like you've reduced art down to the labor and not the actual expression. Why would anyone want to read something where the character responses are simulated? Everything should at least be intentional.

You know what else comes from the output of many people? What AIs produce.

> They love drawing, but not art. They love socializing with artists, but not art. They love receiving attention and income from their art, but not art.

Love of drawing, socializing with artists, and attention and income when people connect and buy their art are all forms of deeper engagement/investment with art.

The generous reading I can make of the mistake that sets these up as the other side of an inimical dichotomy where engaging these things is not loving art is if you're limited to the perspective of someone whose experience with art is that of a consumer and equates that perspective with loving art.

Being concerned about alienation from drawing, from connection with a community of other artists making efforts, and yes from attention and income that makes their focus socially/economically viable seems pretty reasonable.

It's also reasonable to be interested in what new tools can do and I rather imagine there will be people who enjoy that as well, some of whom may be able to produce visions that were previously inaccessible to them. That's interesting and exciting, but it doesn't mean there's no downsides.

Ideas such AI being alive are not universal among the public. Let’s not anthropomorphize plastic and metal we etched human like sentence construction into.