The HATE on AI is the same hate on Photoshop back in the 90s
I came online in the early '90s, when digital tools were new and most people were skeptical of them. I've spent years fascinated by editing and creating with technology, and the current debate over AI-generated images and video feels like a rerun of an argument I remember well.
When Photoshop arrived, the early results were often obvious fakes, and critics dismissed the whole medium. Darkroom photographers saw digital manipulation as a lesser craft. Over time, though, retouching and compositing became standard practice, and the skill matured into a discipline. The people who thrived weren't the ones who applied a filter and called it art. They understood light, composition, and the tool well enough to use it with restraint.
I think AI is following the same arc. Right now anyone can generate something, and much of the output is crude, which invites the same backlash. As the tools mature, the meaningful distinction will be between casual output and skilled, intentional work. Creators who know exactly what they want and how to direct the tool will set the standard, much as the best Photoshop artists did.
That's not to say the critics are wrong about everything. Concerns about authenticity, labor, and disclosure are legitimate and deserve serious answers. But history suggests a medium is ultimately judged by its best practitioners, not its worst examples.