I've said this before, but it bears repeating.

I hear a lot of people expressing their dislike for all things "AI" and in general, I agree with them, but...

The problem I have is that "AI" is an ill-defined term. It's used as a hand-wavey buzzword to mean a whole bunch of different things. Mostly these days, it's pretty synonymous with LLMs and similar technologies, but it's actually a broader term than that. It's much like how the cryptocurrency industry appropriated the word "crypto", but I digress...

I've been dabbling with digital art lately. The idea of using "AI" to generate my art is extremely distasteful to me. That said, I do digital art because it affords me tools that I wouldn't have available to me otherwise. For instance, I, as a human, could not replicate the various filters I've applied, or the liquefy tool. That said, those tools don't need to destroy the planet and plunder the commons to be created. That's an important distinction to me.

The thing is, those tools could be argued to be a form of "AI" given the squishiness of the term to begin with. Also, I don't feel right about calling my art something like "100% human created", because a computer has (under my explicit direction) enhanced the work I've done.

There's a lot of nuance here that's difficult to express in a single post. At what point does the use of a tool overshadow the human involvement in an endeavour? To be honest, I don't exactly know.

I guess my issue, as is frequently the case, is that I get hung up on the precise meaning of words, and I lack a precise definition.