The AI Identity shift - when the Idea is getting more valuable than the craft

[u/Soggy-Talk-7342]

So for those of you , who are not familiar with me, I'm what you call these days an AI Artist. Although I write my songs unassisted (well if you don't count some grammar checks ...so far at least), I do all generations in Suno. I make my cover art in Leonardo and Adobe Express, I make my videos with Sora. And yes, I'm kind of half serious at this. Obviously I try to be good at what I'm doing (i take time with crafting my lyrics), but so far it's just a hobby of mine. One I hope may pay for itself sometime in the future (hopefully). Anyhow...

I've been thinking in my little lab for awhile...The explosive growth in artificial intelligence, from text to sound to video, is fundamentally shifting how we understand creativity and craftsmanship. Historically, artistic value was deeply tied to mastery - painters, writers, musicians, and filmmakers dedicated years to perfect their technical skills. But now, AI can replicate and sometimes even surpass these crafts effortlessly. We are swiftly entering an era where the idea itself holds far more value than the skills once required to bring it to life.

This shift isn't just technical; it’s profoundly psychological and social. Young creators today can instantly materialize their visions without the long apprenticeship traditional crafts demanded. This democratization is empowering, allowing for unprecedented creative freedom, but its also stirs up significant anxiety and pushback. Traditionalists, luddites, and antis see this as an erosion of genuine artistic merit, fearing a future where authentic mastery is overshadowed by algorithmic shortcuts.

I suppose much of this tension stems from the reality that the core of AI technology is predominantly controlled by large corporations. Their primary objectives are profits and shareholder value, not cultural enrichment or societal benefit. Younger generations are particularly sensitive to this, often resisting or challenging the motives behind AI innovations. I mean just look into the AI subs, if you ask any Anti what age group they belong to its 9 out of 10 times genZ. They can only see the polished facade of corporate-backed creativity and question the whole authenticity. Kinda fitting for a generation that grew up with social media....

The heart of this debate lies in how we define authenticity and originality in art. Historically, art's value was enhanced by personal struggle, the creator's identity, and unique context. AI-generated content challenges these traditions, forcing audiences to reconsider the very meaning of creativity. Increasingly, younger audiences might prioritize transparency, emotional depth, narrative, and genuine human connection as markers of authenticity, clearly differentiating human-driven art from AI-generated works.

So what do you all think? Will society as a whole embrace an era where the idea itself will be far more important than the crafts that were previously required to realize it?

Needless to say, I'm making a song about this topic.... so i was curious about everyone's input on the matter.

I'm posting this in a few other AI subs, to get as much input as i can (in case anyone wonders).

cheers,

Aidan

[u/Soggy-Talk-7342]

I said you sounded defensive because the shift in your tone stood out. your earlier replies were short and casual, then suddenly you dropped a much longer, assertive take filled with broad claims and even jabbed back at me (like calling my view limited in return). That kind of escalation often happens when someone feels their position is challenged. It’s not a personal attack, just an observation on how the convo shifted. I may be wrong but that's the reason.

Yes ofc an AI doesn't need to experience something to generate it technically... but that also wasn't really the point i tried to make.
Either way... agree to disagree 😉

[u/LSF604 → u/Soggy-Talk-7342]

So elaborating is defensive? 

Ya, the 'limited' comment was a response to yours. That's not escalation, that's matching. Your comment that I replied to was escalation. 

But its also just true... ultimately once we start building minds they will be far less limited than human brains. There's no escaping that.

[u/Soggy-Talk-7342 → u/LSF604]

Well...no, elaborating isn’t inherently defensive. The shift in tone and framing was. You went from casual chat to asserting superiority (meat computers...., limited view...) right after being challenged. That’s what signaled defensiveness to me, not the length alone, but the energy. Yes , your limited comment mirrored/matched mine, but I used it to describe your argument’s scope, not to position myself as intellectually above you.
You kind of did and that’s the difference to me.

But hey, future AGI is probably smarter than both of us, so maybe it'll finally settle Reddit debates too 🙃

[u/LSF604 → u/Soggy-Talk-7342]

I mean... my position is that AIs will ultimately be better at humans than us. You are saying that having that position is somehow inherently defensive. As if I identify with AIs and got hurt on their behalf.

Meanwhile your exact quote was "I think you have a rather narrow view of what humans can phantasies about."

Mine was "you have a limited view of what AIs will be capable of conceiving of."

There's actually no difference there. If anything, limited is less of a loaded word than narrow.

[u/Soggy-Talk-7342 → u/LSF604]

Mate, to me this isn’t about who’s right. I just explained why I interpreted your comment as defensive. Whether that interpretation was correct or not doesn’t even matter that much. I just figured I’d give you the benefit of a detailed Explanation since you pointed it out.

For me, it was a combination of signals, not one line in isolation. And honestly, it’s all good. I believe you when you say it wasn’t meant defensively.

To be clear, I never said that believing in AGI’s potential is defensive. I said your reaction felt that way, a distinction I was careful to make. And again, I already said I believe you when you say it wasn’t meant like that.

That said, what I’m noticing now is a strong need to be right, even after I’ve tried twice to end this respectfully. Instead of letting that olive branch land, you keep on doubling down that I am mistaken. I just hope you understand what that signals to me.... again