>However if the tools limit what they can create themselves and make it difficult to fix or fine tune when something is not how they envision things in their mind before creating it, then they're not good tools. Even worse are the tools that take away their ability to create at all.
I might be wrong, but I think you're picturing all-or-nothing use cases here. It's not all just 'draw me a picture'; Think smaller scope and maybe you see that middle ground. Take as an example, for a writer, clicking on a phrase like 'he raised his eyebrows' and being suggested alternative wordings so he can avoid repetition. Is that interfering with his act of creation any differently than checking a thesaurus?
Consider being able to have an interaction with an LLM to whom you can ask 'is the plot of my thriller so far leaving any plot hole?'. That does not seem so different with a back-and-forth with an editor or an early reader, in terms of affecting creative freedom.
>If you can get a program to spit something out and say "look, isn't that good enough?" you have missed the entire point of art.
Again, I get that but art is not what tech companies are trying to substitute. If a music generator can give you background music for studying there is no art creation involved, but neither the owner of the youtube channel making ad money nor the listeners give a shit.
I'm not defending that position necessarily, mind you, just pointing out that the business interests in 'not art, but just content, that happens to need artist's skills to create' far surpasses the interest in actual art.
As an analogy: Many musicians will scoff at mainstream pop artists and how every song is just the same four chords. But is the business in pop or in avant garde jazz?
I might be wrong, but I think you're picturing all-or-nothing use cases here. It's not all just 'draw me a picture'; Think smaller scope and maybe you see that middle ground. Take as an example, for a writer, clicking on a phrase like 'he raised his eyebrows' and being suggested alternative wordings so he can avoid repetition. Is that interfering with his act of creation any differently than checking a thesaurus?
Consider being able to have an interaction with an LLM to whom you can ask 'is the plot of my thriller so far leaving any plot hole?'. That does not seem so different with a back-and-forth with an editor or an early reader, in terms of affecting creative freedom.
>If you can get a program to spit something out and say "look, isn't that good enough?" you have missed the entire point of art.
Again, I get that but art is not what tech companies are trying to substitute. If a music generator can give you background music for studying there is no art creation involved, but neither the owner of the youtube channel making ad money nor the listeners give a shit.
I'm not defending that position necessarily, mind you, just pointing out that the business interests in 'not art, but just content, that happens to need artist's skills to create' far surpasses the interest in actual art.
As an analogy: Many musicians will scoff at mainstream pop artists and how every song is just the same four chords. But is the business in pop or in avant garde jazz?