> if it was clearly labelled as AI I wouldn't even look at it.

If you dislike it without even seeing it, that would indicate the problem isn't with the video...

Yes, the problem is with AI. I'm tired of trying to find X and finding "AI X" instead. I google "pixel art" I get "AI pixel art." I google clipart I get "AI clipart." I go to /r/logodesign to see some cool logo designs, it's 50% people who used ChatGPT asking if it looks good enough.

The only good AI is AI out of my sight.

> I'd feel scammed if it wasn't clearly labelled as AI

TBF - have you looked at a digital photo made in the last decade? Likely had significant 'AI' processing applied to it. That's why I call it a regressive pattern to dislike anything with a new label attached - it minimizes at best and often flat out ignores the very real work very real artists put in to leverage the new tools.

Face it. People are okay with super resolution efforts, including most deep learning-based methods. But not "AI". You can run video through i2i as a cleanup tool and upload it on the Internet, some tried and quit. YouTubers and TikTokers aren't doing it and they're all for attention.

Output of current image generators are trash. It's unsalvageable. That's the problem, not "regressive pattern".

You still have to take the photo. That's a billion times more effort than typing a prompt in ChatGPT.

honestly, that's the same argument people made against photographs when the technology became available. Same argument made against the printing press.

New tools aren't inherently inferior, they open up new opportunities.

I've never seen a photograph pretending to be an illustration, or vice-versa. It's only AI that pretends to be a genre it isn't.

If anything photography mostly just replaced painted portraits, hence why high art went super abstract in response.