Yeah, but if I handed you a Maxfield Parrish it would be better than either of us can do — but not what I asked for.

I find generative AI frustrating because I know what I want. To this point I have been trying but then ultimately sitting it out — waiting for the one that really works the way I want.

For me even if I know what I want, if I’m using gen AI I’m happy to compromise and get good enough (which again, is so much better than I could do otherwise).

If you want higher quality/precision, you’ll likely want to ask a professional, and I don’t expect that to change in the near future.

That limits its value for industries like Hollywood, though, doesn't it? And without that, who exactly is going to pay for this?

To me, currently, visual generative ai is an evolution and improvement of stock images, and has effectively the same purpose.

People pay for stock images.

Yeah, maybe for some purposes. In business, people sometimes pay for stock images but often don't have the expertise or patience to really spend a lot of time coaching a video into fruition. Maybe for advertising or other contexts where more effort is worth it (not just powerpoints), but it feels like a slim audience.

With tools like Apple Intelligence and its genmoji (emoji generation) and playground (general diffusion image generation) I expect it to also take on some of the current entertainment and social use-cases of stickers and GIFs.

But that’s probably something you don’t pay for directly, instead paying for e.g. a phone that has those features.

Advertisers, I guess. Same folks who paid for everything else around here

Yeah, I just question if there are enough customers to make this work.