I don’t think that’s quite the right analogy. You’re not talking to humans to get your images. You are using a tool that’s designed to generate images from written language.

A better analogy would be an invention of a mechanical cook. While it will sometimes make edible food if you just give it regular language instructions, to get something truly tasty and interesting out of it you need to learn how it works and even understand its inner functioning. And while doing that may or may not make you “a cook”, it does give you the ability to produce new interesting food and share it with others, which is useful&cool in its own right.

Given how vague most definitions of “art” are, I feel like we can call some AI-generated stuff a form of art (but that’s not a strong opinion of mine). I don’t think we should gatekeep what “art” is - if it allows you to express your emotions and feelings and share it with others, I say why not call it “art”? It’s definitely not the same as painting or drawing or photography, but it can produce interesting and/or aesthetically pleasing results, and the results improve with skill.

I’d argue we didn’t fully understand the theory of electricity until we understood the atomic structures of metals and semiconductors, and that was properly developed in the early 20th century.

When was this written?

Given it has a (good quality) color photo attached to it, it was definitely published when we already understood the theory of electricity really well, so it doesn’t get a pass.

We don’t know what any of the fundamental forces (electromagnetism, gravity, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) really are

I’d argue that for fundamental forces, “what they are” and “what they do” is the same, by definition.

And in any case, mains supply in your home is not just electromagnetic waves vibing around, it’s electrons engineered to move through wires in very specific ways, transferring power from a moving magnet or (increasingly) a photon falling on a semiconductor junction, to move another magnet, heat up some metal, or (increasingly) bounce around some electrons between some semiconductor junctions and then emit photons from other semiconductors junctions.

Finally, most of the text is bullshit even if you don’t think we know what fundamental forces “are”:

No one has ever felt it

You can easily feel electric discharge. Just rub your hair on some wool.

No one has ever heard it

Just be around a thunderstorm. Thunder is the sound of an electric discharge.

We cannot even say where electricity comes from

You can see where the energy that moved the electrons in your wires came from: https://app.electricitymaps.com/

It was written by a complete and utter buffoon, and it can’t be redeemed with any amount of handwaving or philosophizing over what it means to “know” or what things “are”. Either that or it’s satire (which might well be the case).

After reading the first sentence I wasn’t sure if you were anti-AI “too lazy to learn how to paint” or pro-AI “too lazy to learn prompt engineering” :D

As for your actual comment, while I’m also generally against AI, I feel like a shift in perspective is inevitable and has already happened to an extent.

I think it makes sense to compare image genAI to photography. It also made it far easier for people without “artistic talent” to produce images. Same as with AI, it is technically a purely mechanical process, a machine designed to make images. Also similar to AI, most of those images were kind of trash. However, it soon became its own separate art form, with its own language and a set of rules for “what makes a picture good”. Would you say that photographers are not artists because they use a mechanical (or, nowadays, electronic) contraption for their art?

I feel like something similar is happening with AI. There are be certain kinds of AI-generated images that people like, and it will take increasing amounts of effort and skill to generate new, interesting ones. As time goes on and the hype wears off a bit, there will be a relatively small community of hardcore AI prompt engineers making something novel and interesting, while most people just use AI for practical purposes or just fun, similar to photography.

The main differences between photography and genAI are the insane amount of energy required for generating batches of images, and the fact that it steals from human artists to produce its results. This is the reason I’m opposed to the current AI hype, not just because it’s mechanical.