General

Your average creative will always hate generative AI. Theft and environmental impact aside, it's seen as being lazy. The average creative put in the work to develop their skill. Went through the ugly stage to get good or even great.

I've been writing since I was 5. I'm very good at what I do - look at the stories on my profile. I learned my craft, and I'm always improving.

You can't get that with generative AI. It's a crutch. When you come across a problem, you do not have the incentive to find a creative solution that helps you grow as a writer. You do not have the need to choreograph a scene or research a topic to make a more interesting story. Instead, you'll type a prompt into Chat-GPT or whatever else you are using and it will spit out a safe, computed answer.

Human-in-the-loop (HITL) for visual work means humans retain control at every step — from concept to final polish:

Concept & references: You define style, composition, color palette and provide reference images; the AI produces variations, not finished decisions.
Prompting & iteration: You supply targeted prompts, evaluate results and direct follow-up modifications for desired details.
Selection & composition: You pick usable elements from multiple generations, combine parts and manually adjust proportions/poses.
Post-processing & retouching: You correct anatomical errors, perspective, textures and colors in an image editor; add final lighting.
The same principle applies to texts — prompting, selection, editing and stylistic finalization by humans.

That's a way to create content! Not Art, though.

That's a legitimate position — many distinguish between craft/technique (the HITL process) and art/authorship. Human-in-the-loop describes the production workflow; whether something qualifies as 'art' also depends on originality, intention, and aesthetic expression. The quote attributed to Robert Henri — 'The object isn't to make art, it's to be in that wonderful state which makes art inevitable' — gets to the point: that's what it's about, and that feeling can be brought about. Why, and how people judge the result is of no concern to the artist.

All Artists care about how people judge their Art! Its called feedback!

Also, its not just about the process. Its basically about the ownership of the idea.

AI is a tool. Technology has always been part of art — human intention, selection, and judgment are what turn results into art.

The debate about copyright should be considered separately: many problems stem less from the technology itself than from the financial interests of large multinational corporations shaping the rules to their advantage.

Im not talking about copy right. I honestly dont care at all about that. What i care about is a person having a complete understanding of their creation. Thats what that term means, though i should have explained.

Tools don't determine status: new techniques (the camera, the synthesizer, digital editing tools) were first rejected and later accepted as legitimate artistic media. AI is the next such tool — it expands expressive possibilities.
Human agency remains central: people set goals, craft prompts, curate outputs, iterate, and bring intention. Those decisions shape meaning and aesthetics just as much as brushstrokes or mixer knobs.
Novelty and emergent behaviors: AI systems produce unexpected combinations, styles, and forms that can spark new artistic directions. Surprise and invention are core to art — AI can provide material artists use to explore new ideas.
Collaboration as a creative mode: art has many collaborative traditions (workshops, studios, bands). Human–AI collaboration is another form in which agency is distributed but art still emerges.
Audience reception matters: if viewers respond emotionally, intellectually, or aesthetically to an AI-assisted work, it functions as art — regardless of the technical details behind it.
Intentional framing and curation: how creators select, edit, sequence, and present AI outputs communicates meaning; curatorial acts are artistic decisions.
In short: AI supplies novel materials and capabilities; humans supply intent, selection, and framing — together they produce works that meet the usual criteria for art.

The human sets the intention: they determine what the image should be (theme, mood, purpose). Without that consciously set intention there is no directed creative act, only random output.

The human makes design decisions: prompt formulation, selecting and weighting variants, post‑processing (cropping, color correction, retouching), and combining multiple outputs — all creative interventions that shape the work.
The human bears conceptual responsibility: the idea behind the image — its meaning, narrative, or question — comes from the human. AI supplies material; the human organizes it and gives it significance.
The human controls the process: iterating, choosing between alternatives, and strategically using AI capabilities are decisions that determine the result.
Control over final presentation: how, where, and in what context the image is shown (title, series, exhibition, description) are artistic choices made by the human that shape reception.
Legal and practical precedent: in many jurisdictions and in practice, those who make creative choices and shape the work are considered the author/owner — AI is treated as a tool.

AI is material and craft; the idea, intention, and decisive acts of creation come from the human. Therefore the (ideational) ownership of the image's idea rests with the human.

Mayhaps. But having looked at AI art and literature, it's safe to say it's stifling creativity, not enhancing it.

Speaking for writers only, there are scores of free, non-AI programs and communities dedicated to this very thing. And they are not hard to find either. A quick web search will pull out numerous options, so you are spoiled for choice.

So when you say "AI can do _," it reads as someone who does not write and is not passionate about writing.

AI is a pale imitation of what already exists.

Premises: (a creativity requires years of practice and craft work; (b AI is only a pale imitation.
Contradiction check: (a implies that creativity rests on learnable skills/decisions. (b asserts that no tool can adequately reproduce those skills. Both together are consistent only if one additionally claims that those skills are in principle unlearnable/unteachable — an unjustified extra assumption.
Conclusion: It is logically permissible to pose the dichotomy: either creativity is mystical/unteachable (in which case evidence must be provided), or it consists of analyzable techniques (in which case tools like AI can at least assist those techniques).