I think AI is a tool, meaning it should be used for helping people — brainstorming ideas, studying, understanding complex topics. But it shouldn’t replace human creativity. That’s my core position. In art, AI works best as a support tool rather than a replacement. Asking it for pose ideas, composition suggestions, or lighting concepts is a legitimate use. But the actual execution should still be done by the person. The goal should be improving your own skills, not bypassing them entirely. I’ve heard the argument that art has always been commercial, produced under deadlines, even commissioned — and that’s true. But that doesn’t mean the skill, the decision-making, and the human judgment behind the work stopped mattering. A commissioned painting still required someone to actually paint it. What AI changes isn’t the pressure to produce, it’s whether a human hand and mind are involved in the craft at all. That distinction is worth preserving. On the training data issue — I want to be honest that it’s more complicated than just “using AI for references is like scrolling Pinterest.” Pinterest shows you existing human work directly. AI generates something synthesized from that work, often without the original creators’ knowledge or compensation. Using AI-generated visuals purely as a compositional reference is one thing, but it’s fair to acknowledge there’s a real ethical question underneath it that doesn’t have a clean answer yet. For studying, AI should help you understand things better — explaining topics, breaking down instructions, guiding your thinking. But it shouldn’t just produce your answers for you. Some argue that this is no different from how calculators replaced mental arithmetic, and humanity adjusted fine. I think that comparison has genuine merit up to a point. Calculators handle computation, but you still need to understand which operation to apply and why. AI writing assistance is a bigger leap — it can replace the actual reasoning process, not just the execution of it. Arithmetic was one skill. Forming an argument, structuring a thought, deciding what you actually believe — those are the foundations of critical thinking itself. Outsourcing those entirely is a different category of risk. For writing emails or professional documents, using AI to fix grammar and clarify wording is fine as long as the ideas are originally yours. Polishing your own words is completely different from generating your entire thought process. An editor corrects your phrasing — they don’t invent your beliefs. On transparency — I think people should be honest when AI is significantly involved in something they’re presenting as their own work. I’ll acknowledge this is hard to enforce in any formal way, and there’s no clean universal standard for it yet. But the absence of a rule doesn’t make the principle wrong. Honesty about process matters even when no one’s checking. Deepfakes are something I strongly disagree with. Using AI to create realistic fake images, voices, or videos of real people without consent is harmful — it enables misinformation and can seriously damage someone’s reputation. That should require explicit permission at minimum. Low-effort AI spam content is another problem. Flooding platforms with mass-generated content purely for views degrades the spaces where people actually put genuine effort in. Volume is not a substitute for originality. Over-dependence is a real risk too, and I’d apply this same concern to over-reliance on any technology that does your thinking for you. GPS weakened a lot of people’s sense of direction. Spellcheck made some people stop caring about spelling. AI is a much larger version of that same pattern — and the cognitive skills most at risk happen to be the most important ones. At the end of the day, I see AI as something that should enhance human ability, not replace it. It should help people learn, create, and improve — not do everything for them. Note: I used ChatGPT to clean up grammar and formatting since my Grammer isn’t the best. The arguments and opinions are entirely my own. Also mods don’t ban me because you said " We get questions about Al replacing jobs daily. Please use the search instead of asking it again. Your post will be removed otherwise." And not once did I talk about that submitted by /u/New-Blueberry-8665
Originally posted by u/New-Blueberry-8665 on r/ArtificialInteligence