Literally took me a couple hours of extensive highly detailed prompts and constant tweaks. People think it’s like “draw this ai” and boom you have your entire vision in front of you, but that’s far from the case.
Psychologically none of you can fathom that Ai will eventually take over and nobody will notice the difference or care 10-15 years from now how art is made.
That pattern repeats every single time a major technological shift hits creative tools.
History Repeating Itself
Digital Drawing Tablets & Photoshop (1990s–2000s): When Adobe Photoshop and digital drawing tablets like Wacom first hit the market, traditional painters declared that digital art "wasn't real art". Purists argued that using an "Undo" button (Ctrl+Z), digital layers, and color pickers was lazy cheating because you didn't have to mix physical paint or master brush control.
The Invention of Photography (1830s–1840s): When cameras were first invented, traditional portrait painters were furious. They claimed photographs took zero skill, were just a mechanical cheat, and that pushing a button on a machine wasn't art compared to spending 80 hours with an oil canvas.
Synthesizers & Digital Audio (1970s–1980s): When electronic synthesizers and drum machines entered music, traditional musicians tried to get them banned, claiming pressing buttons wasn't "real" music production compared to playing a physical guitar or acoustic drums.
The Reality of the Cycle
Every generation builds a standard around the tools they spent years mastering, then instantly tries to gatekeep the space when a new technology simplifies part of the process. Once a tool becomes standard, people forget the original outrage ever existed. In ten years, the exact same cycle will happen all over again with whatever tool comes after generative tech.