Whilst TOTALLY agreeing with your fundamental premise that using AI to 'create' (I use the term as loosely as you can imagine) and fully endorsing Tom's point regarding outcomes being more important than outputs - anyone can output 'rubbish' with or without the help of AI - but if we work to effect an intentional outcome, using our creative skills (and not everyone has such skills!) our work, more often than not, will get the desired result - at least help the client move closer to their intended outcome!.
However, in a world where AI is being 'employed' to reduce the cost of producing material (regardless of its quality - always subjective in the creative arena) we cannot avoid the impact that AI will have on those who do not actually value creative services highly enough or feel obliged to use it to minimise costs and maximise their objectives which are increasingly dictated by costs. Therefore we have to acknowledge the inevitability of AI being actively employed in some circles to attempt to gain an advantage of some kind.
We already use (over-use?) this kind of technology to get from 'A to B' with GPS, so are already well down the road towards having to think very little about HOW we reach our destination (the outcome) and so the point about 'the satisfaction of getting from A to B by earning it through mental effort' seems irrelevant except in terms of human endeavour - if we don't need to use our mental capacity many will choose not to, even though this may be an unconscious process over time, but that's human nature! Most will always take the easy (lazy) option.
Much more important for me, from a purely creative standpoint, is the potential devaluation of human endeavour to the point where those specifying how the next creative campaign is carried out are so blinded by technological advances that they believe the outcomes will be no better using humans than using AI (even if prompted by humans). I do not want to 'prompt' a machine to produce something that my own mind could not create, though I would happily use it to produce a range of options for consideration - IF it gets better. Thus far, I've not seen anything that I could use straight out of the tin, so to speak, whilst maintaining my own 'voice' or style on any creative project. As a Photoshop and Illustrator 'expert' I can already see more automated features and effects being provided that will enable many 'average' creatives to produce work they may not have the skills to produce themselves, hence my safety-net of 'getting on a bit' and therefore not having to worry too much about the last few years of my creative career, which promises to be flooded with more and more 'Johnny-come-latelys' who will rely on the tech to do the donkey work.
AI has less to offer the creative industry than many may imagine - and perhaps that's the biggest problem we face - a lack of imagination!
Whilst TOTALLY agreeing with your fundamental premise that using AI to 'create' (I use the term as loosely as you can imagine) and fully endorsing Tom's point regarding outcomes being more important than outputs - anyone can output 'rubbish' with or without the help of AI - but if we work to effect an intentional outcome, using our creative skills (and not everyone has such skills!) our work, more often than not, will get the desired result - at least help the client move closer to their intended outcome!.
However, in a world where AI is being 'employed' to reduce the cost of producing material (regardless of its quality - always subjective in the creative arena) we cannot avoid the impact that AI will have on those who do not actually value creative services highly enough or feel obliged to use it to minimise costs and maximise their objectives which are increasingly dictated by costs. Therefore we have to acknowledge the inevitability of AI being actively employed in some circles to attempt to gain an advantage of some kind.
We already use (over-use?) this kind of technology to get from 'A to B' with GPS, so are already well down the road towards having to think very little about HOW we reach our destination (the outcome) and so the point about 'the satisfaction of getting from A to B by earning it through mental effort' seems irrelevant except in terms of human endeavour - if we don't need to use our mental capacity many will choose not to, even though this may be an unconscious process over time, but that's human nature! Most will always take the easy (lazy) option.
Much more important for me, from a purely creative standpoint, is the potential devaluation of human endeavour to the point where those specifying how the next creative campaign is carried out are so blinded by technological advances that they believe the outcomes will be no better using humans than using AI (even if prompted by humans). I do not want to 'prompt' a machine to produce something that my own mind could not create, though I would happily use it to produce a range of options for consideration - IF it gets better. Thus far, I've not seen anything that I could use straight out of the tin, so to speak, whilst maintaining my own 'voice' or style on any creative project. As a Photoshop and Illustrator 'expert' I can already see more automated features and effects being provided that will enable many 'average' creatives to produce work they may not have the skills to produce themselves, hence my safety-net of 'getting on a bit' and therefore not having to worry too much about the last few years of my creative career, which promises to be flooded with more and more 'Johnny-come-latelys' who will rely on the tech to do the donkey work.
AI has less to offer the creative industry than many may imagine - and perhaps that's the biggest problem we face - a lack of imagination!
I love the comparison with GPS, and you're right many will pick the "lazy" lowest effort option.
My eldest is 10 and I dread to think how soulless her career options could end up being when she's older.