> Why do those things not apply to someone using AI? I hate making this kind of argument, but:

I'm glad you made this argument, because I think it helps illustrate the point. When we talk about photography vs. AI vs. other forms of artwork in highly abstract terms, they all sound superficially similar.

The moment you start to dive into the details behind each process, it's clear that they are entirely unlike each other. So yes, the AI "artist" is drawing on a myriad of factors and intuitions, but the nature of those factors and intuitions and the effect they have on the output are drastically different to the point that they don't resemble photography even a little bit.

For example, the photographer who wants to take a stunning photograph of a snowy mountain vista at sunrise often has to:

- Use their knowledge of basic astronomy and sun movement to plan the timing and location of the photo

- Use their body to physically hike to the location that will give them this stunning view

- Use their knowledge of survival to stay safe while they hike

- Once on location, use their knowledge of perspective, depth, camera angle, and composition to find a pleasing place to take the photo from (composition is one of the single most impactful choices and only comes from practice/skill)

- While under time pressure from the rising sun, dial in the correct depth of field and exposure

- When things go wrong (which they often do), quickly re-assess all of the above and try shots from new location

- When done, understand the properties of light and color to a degree that enables them to develop the photo so that it matches the original scene

- The wildlife photographer draws on yet another deep and potentially vast skillset

The AI "artist" types "a stunning photograph of a snowy mountain vista at sunrise" into a box and clicks the Generate button.

It may be that knowing how to formulate a sentence that describes the desired scene relies on a myriad of factors and intuitions, but to compare those factors and intuitions to those the photographer is using seems deeply problematic.

Which leads us to reason people find stunning photographs enjoyable to look at in the first place. Encoded in that photograph is the story of the person who took it. In every piece of traditional art (using the word traditional here to mean not AI), the artist's life experiences, thoughts, emotions, and personal investment are baked into the result. This is why many/most people find art compelling. Not just for its beauty, but for the humanity encoded into it.

AI imagery is its own form of deeply fascinating when you think of it as a distillation of the skills of millions of people baked into a single model. But when you see a piece of AI imagery, it cannot evoke the same kind of emotional connection to the source, because it's far removed from the original artistic process. It's something, but it's not compelling.

> You still need those things in order to make a compelling image with AI, especially if you're getting into the more advanced uses.

You need very little, relatively speaking, to make a compelling image with AI when compared to the life experiences of the people who made the imagery that powers current AI models. That's not to say you need nothing, but I don't think they can be compared.

Once you move beyond these abstract comparisons, the underlying processes show themselves to be entirely unlike each other.

I should also mention that I'm not saying AI imagery has no place. I think it's tremendously useful for the creation of educational content, to help people communicate ideas they previously didn't have the skills to communicate, etc. But I think it sits in a very different category.