Leaps ("forward" is open to debate) are often great sorting mechanisms. They sort those who truly love what they are doing from those who are just in it for "the scene" or some other more superficial reason.
I remember meeting a ceramicist from Thailand who had studied with some of the great masters of both Japan and the west, and he was truly a wizard with porcelain clay... he'd moved to Seabrook, Texas and whereas he liked the US well enough, he was baffled by the obsession with both trends and artists copying his work. From his perspective, he just loved making pots. And they were beautiful pots. His standard answer to those who felt concerned that his work wasn't "in style" OR that people might copy him was simple: "They are welcome to try... it will take them 10 years to figure out how I do what I do, and by then I will hopefully have advanced ANOTHER 10 years. I don't care, I just love making pots."
Sorry, wandering a bit. But yes, we have to just show up as ourselves. AI is probably great for those who care about AI. Human generated art is great for those who care about human art.
=^..^=
Posted using Proof of Brain
That's what I picked up on after giving this whole thing way too much thought. If the market is gone, I'll just make a new one.
I'm the only one that can pull off my style, like a lot of humans with their styles. Not saying it's great, just saying it's mine. If people like it, awesome. If not, that's life. Not much I can do about it.
I'm curious about whether or not an AI develops a style? Human artists definitely do, and I know there will always be a need to create.
!LUV
@nonameslefttouse, @wrestlingdesires(4/10) sent you LUV. | tools | discord | community |
HiveWiki | 
NFT | <>< daily
In the current form I can tell its an AI image, but you can't really call that a style. It can mimic styles, or at least try to. It's not "smart" enough to have the desire to create its own.
At least not yet. It's not sentient yet either...