I don't think the concern is out of graphic designers, but the diminishing of humans from the creative process. Art is meant to be expressive of human experience. It's a translation of feeling and ideas (intangible) into a medium (tangible). One could argue AI still achieves this to a degree, and there ARE some really good AI generated artwork out there that does achieve this well but most of it isn't commercial art.
I think the actual concern people have with AI generated art is that the bar for entry has been lowered (expected) but we're ignoring the attention to detail or verifying/confirming the output. Too much trust is being put into AI generated output and we rush to publish stuff that doesn't convey the original idea. With it being commercially driven art, the incentives aren't there to properly review when you are emphasizing quantity over quality.
Take the swan and army boat in Los Angeles lake example. Before fully AI generated art existed, a human would have looked and reviewed that and ask the artist, "why the hell is there a swan there?" There could be a dialogue to defend or change that.
Even without AI, this problem still would have existed if your goal is producing as much distinct art at scale with less humans in the loop. Things are bound to slip through but it only winds up being smaller issues that might not impact expression of idea. Adding fully generated AI art has amplified this problem to a point where we don't have time to review at all.
Sadly, this is only going to perpetuate some of the toxic gate-keeping patterns we've developed in the tech industry for interviews. Thumbnail image suggests that this excels at "trivia based," knowledge versus relevant and applied.
In short: this will be optimizing your hiring for some sort of programming Jeopardy contestant that might not be able to ship code on time and have human workplace soft skills.
Agree that charging on a link is bad. I'd even argue, that if you are going to charge for linking to an article, then I'd expect no ads on that site.
But, anything beyond a link starts to open up questions for me.
Who even uses Google's AI summarize feature for articles? For me, most of the time it's been because the pop-up for it jumped in the way for me and it was an accidental click. When I have intentionally used it, it's been a pretty poor summary and misses key nuances that make the article unique compared to other publishers.
Taking a step back further, I don't know who is asking for this feature. What's the target market here?
Also, perhaps I'm wrong here but I don't think anyone would want an AI summarized version of other types of media like songs or movies.
One thing that has annoyed me in addition to movies being unavailable on streaming, is also just the quality. Netflix's 4k plan ranges in 15.6-25Mbps streams versus a Blu-Ray at 72Mbps-144Mbps. Data has to get lost somewhere. Ultra Blu-Ray doesn't compare to whatever ABR stream providers give.
Even if you want to argue that providers could offer 72Mbps-144Mbps, unless there is a change with how much "prebuffering" there is, have ideal network conditions always, and change hardware on most consumer streaming media devices -- we're still losing that quality.
Most streaming providers are betting folks prefer convenience over quality and that folks don't have ideal setups to tell the difference. That they aren't even getting the right size 4k TV to tell a difference (https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-r...).
The part that frustrates me the most is that it feels streaming services are trying to redefine this as the "peak experience," and try to upsell (Examples: Netflix 4k plan or IMAX Enhanced on Disney+ https://help.disneyplus.com/article/disneyplus-imax-enhanced)
I think the actual concern people have with AI generated art is that the bar for entry has been lowered (expected) but we're ignoring the attention to detail or verifying/confirming the output. Too much trust is being put into AI generated output and we rush to publish stuff that doesn't convey the original idea. With it being commercially driven art, the incentives aren't there to properly review when you are emphasizing quantity over quality.
Take the swan and army boat in Los Angeles lake example. Before fully AI generated art existed, a human would have looked and reviewed that and ask the artist, "why the hell is there a swan there?" There could be a dialogue to defend or change that.
Even without AI, this problem still would have existed if your goal is producing as much distinct art at scale with less humans in the loop. Things are bound to slip through but it only winds up being smaller issues that might not impact expression of idea. Adding fully generated AI art has amplified this problem to a point where we don't have time to review at all.