Is AI the beginning of the democratization of creativity?
haebom.dev
haebom.dev
I'm hopelessly devoid of artistic creativity, and no amount of generative AI has made me capable of creating interesting art. Regardless of whether I'm able to pay for the shiniest iteration of the software, which seemed to be the main focus of this blog post.
Lots of smart people say this, but lots of other smart people say it is logarithmically. It's hard to say with certainty until we are on the other side of this curve.
> Requires a subscription fee of at least $20 per month, a high-performance computer, and a stable Internet connection.
If you have a high-performance computer, the $20 monthly fee and the internet connection are not really required. I've been pretty blown away with what I can squeeze out of a 7900 XTX, both for text and images. I'm lucky enough to be able to also afford some subscriptions (Perplexity Pro and Kagi Ultimate), but I still find my local model useful for data that I don't want to leak to external APIs.
As far as creativity goes, I think it mostly "democratizes" it in the sense that it is a new set of mediums to express creativity. New mediums are attractive to a different set of people from the old mediums that still exist, and therfore more people will be drawn to creative activities altogether.
>People used to be in awe of creativity, originality, and innovation.
People could choose to admire AI for those things but in truth it was only ever a very small % of those things which ever got a positive response for being partly new and partly familiar (Most Advanced Yet Acceptable design principle). When a tool comes along that can be too advanced and too familiar to everything they hold dear of course the focus is on how bad it is.
This is very obviously a creative process. Generative AI mediums are in their infancy, and most people are bad at it, but people seem to vastly underestimate the skill ceiling just because the medium tends to have a higher skill floor than lots of other creative mediums.