My creative process as a character illustrator is different than the creative process for a watercolor painter or a graphic designer. If I forced you to answer with a yes/no, would you confidently agree that their processes are different enough to be considered "apples and oranges"? I'm not sure what such statements establish, if anything at all.
And if I told you that, as someone who has done art for decades, that the human creative process is very similar to how an AI is trained on existing images, would you believe me and move on?
> Because if that's the case, I'm afraid you have a very odd idea of how these AIs function.
The design of neutral nets, by definition, were derived from the workings of the human brain.
That's the thing - no, they weren't. They were inspired by how neurons communicate with each other. But that's not "the workings of the human brain", you're making an incorrect abstraction, same with these AI.
Why should I believe you and move on? "making art for decades" doesn't make you an authority on any of the relevant subjects: "how art is processed in the brain" nor "how AI processes these images." I don't think you understand the fundamental differences between the process of looking up references/inspiration and kitbashing.
And if I told you that, as someone who has done art for decades, that the human creative process is very similar to how an AI is trained on existing images, would you believe me and move on?
> Because if that's the case, I'm afraid you have a very odd idea of how these AIs function.
The design of neutral nets, by definition, were derived from the workings of the human brain.