It does so much good but then there’s many bad faith actors doing bad with it or just misrepresenting the tech entirely in good or bad light which is almost veering into classic, news media moral panic territory, if it hasn’t already.
I think AI is definitely bad terminology for a start, but it sounds cool to investors who may not be tech savvy and it’s a shortcut to say it’s not like what we had before. Even though it kinda is, just done veryveryveryveryveryfastsir.
A lot of it is truly the natural progression of stuff we’ve been using for decades now to aid in image manipulation, video editing, databasing etc. I also recall a similar divide in the 90s and into the 00s about digital art Vs traditional art mediums etc and how using digital interfaces with undo buttons is “cheating” or not earned somehow.
There’s just the whole tricky side of public media generation tools, most of it is bored teenagers spurning out a lot of garbage (or in my case, churning out garbage theme songs to bother friends with about our life adventures), but the way it’s reported it sounds like it’s only adults with no talent churning out rubbish for quick income or free something. (I don’t think it makes anything intended for mass consumption, it’s good for injokes with friends and memes.)
Reminds me of the napster days. The younger generations flocked to this new model while the older model tried to smother it entirely through legal proceedings.
What ultimately ended up happening was a bunch of court time wasted chasing people who were underage and never could have afforded that much music to begin with so it was never truly lost revenue they were chasing, just trying to maintain the old order.
Eventually they had no choice but to follow the trend and build industry and legislation around the new model, never forgetting to also screw the artists in the process too. It’s an important part apparently.
I see this being the only way forward for these public ai media generation sites, deals need to be made with the old guard and new eco system and legislation needs to be put in place to protect those whose property it could harm. But hey let’s maybe not also screw over artists again this time?
As then, I also find it hypocritical now that these big companies say they’re sticking up for artists getting screwed, when they are the ones who screw over their talent every single day through the archaic model they drug into the digital age and insist it stick around.
Not to say what’s been done with this tech isn’t a very big leap than the digital aids we’ve had in the past, it’s certainly light years ahead of just adding the magic eraser tool to Photoshop (I remember there being huge contention over that too) but from my perspective it’s also just the progression of that. Not something to be feared, not something that’s going to allow a numbskull to take your highly skilled art job. Just something that will, if anything, help with workflow once you figure out how it can work for you. Or you can never use it at all, and that can be a draw to your work too. Like how there’s even higher admiration nowadays for paintings produced entirely in flesh space etc.
We can never just get there though, but I can only assume we will.
Top of the list on legislation and regulations of course, don’t replace people with programs or software. 
wishful thinking? 
hopefully folk who know better can get back to you soon.
