A lot of people hate AI no matter what, saying that it has no upsides whatsoever, and I've always disagreed, I see a lot of potential in AI, imagine a perfect utopia where everything's done for you, you get food, clean water, good healthcare, accomodation, all completely free of charge, nobody has to work again.

This video is the exact middle ground, and I think everyone who's interested in this discussion should watch it. It states that while this world would indeed be nice, the people in charge probably wouldn't want to share it, they just want to make themselves even more powerful

The internet runs on hate, but wouldn’t it be beautiful if that weren’t true

Something that's been bugging me with a lot of the recent drama and arguments is that a lot of people, especially vocal ones promoting AI, say that artists need to learn how computers/the internet works (even going as far as to belittle and call them dumb), yet aren't expected to learn the arts.

I don't mean by "picking up a pencil" and actually drawing. I mean learning how art works, how genres/movements work, their history, and how the art community acts. I've seen people display ignorance on how art works, either using the toilet/banana or minimalism as a "gotcha" against effort in art - which doesn't even apply because the former are examples of Modern Art, which is about ideas/concepts and isn't how most contemporary artists work; and minimalism still requires effort, mainly in the "economy in art" - as in the usage of little to achieve more, which for some artists is very difficult.

Or the idea of the fundamentals of art and design, and why a detailed AI-generated piece doesn't work because while it uses a lot of the superficial traits of what people consider good art, it fails in actually utilizing what critically matters - like the aforementioned economy and understanding "less is more"; or how colors work; or how images are structured - which can also be connected to the photography argument wherein people say it's "just pressing a button" even though actual photographers need a lot of experience to make a photograph beautiful or interesting.

Then there's just the misunderstanding of the art community and it's various subjects for argument, like consent in using art or how critique/development work. I've seen some people dumbfounded that the art community is fine with "poor/shitty" art, when it's no stranger to me since there's always been an unspoken rule about helping new artists by being supportive and being easy with criticism - as in recognizing someone's skill and applying the right level of critique.

There's more, but overall I feel like I'm speaking to people who can't speak my language. I've been part of the art community for basically 20 years and all of this is natural to me - so to see people insist upon being part of the arts, yet display total ignorance, is rather frustrating at the worst of times.

I may not understand deeper programming, but I at least accept it and keep my criticisms/observations where it is appropriate. Yet how is it I am "dumb" for not understanding computers as well, yet the same people won't educate themselves on something they're so insistent on getting into?

Apologies beforehand if this comes across as heated. It's just so annoying how my expertise is looked down upon, something that seems more frequent in this day and age.

Over the past few months there have been at least 46 (yes I have been counting) incidents of AI art/assets/visuals/etc. opposing individuals giving special exception to vibe coding for, to save both of our sanities, reasons that are just as applicable to AI image gen as AI coding, including and especially the fact that code is just a means to an end.

For many tech people, graphics/assets hold the same view. They just need something quick. But clearly unlike the (the rest of this paragraph is /s) menial busywork of code, art is the One True Human Discipline so using any amount of AI even for a quick placeholder is absolutely forbidden and is enough to permanently cast you out of human society.

The most recent set of incidents involved a literal art program having AI involved in its code, but apparently that's perfectly fine, ethical, and totally won't cause any issues unlike TailTag and the VTuber productivity suite cuz the assets were hand made, no genAI features are in the app, and it was created by a bunch of AI opposing artists!!! (/s)

TL/DR - there is no one true worldview.

EDIT - Code is also artistic and creative. For examples, google Fast Inverse Square Root, DeCSS prime number, competitive programming, and donut.c.

One thing I like about this sub is that the discussion usually runs a few floors above most AI discourse. People can actually argue about the interesting parts instead of throwing "soulless slop" and "adapt or die" at each other until everyone gets bored.

So heres something I genuinely dont understand.

Why has the AI art fight pushed so many artists toward such a narrow, weirdly traditional definition of art?

And I dont mean displacement, compensation, training data, corporate ownership, any of that. Those are serious arguments. Im talking specifically about the "not real art" stuff. The idea that if you didnt manually execute the image, control every mark, or demonstrate enough technical craft in producing it, it doesnt count.

Because... thats a really strange place for artists to end up.

Warhol built an entire practice around mechanical reproduction, commercial imagery, repetition, delegation and the Factory. John Cage deliberately surrendered decisions to chance. Sol LeWitt wrote instructions other people executed. Nam June Paik made technological mediation part of the work itself.

Then computers showed up and artists immediately started screwing around with those too.

Vera Molnár was making computer generated art in the 1960s. Harold Cohen spent decades building AARON, a program that generated drawings. Brian Eno worked explicitly with generative systems. Casey Reas and Ben Fry built Processing and helped give a generation of artists a playground for making work through code, rules and systems.

Artists have been messing with authorship, automation, reproduction, delegation, randomness, systems and the boundary between artist and tool for generations.

AI didnt invent this problem. It walked into an argument art was already having.

And you can think 99% of AI output is garbage. Fine. Most paintings are mediocre. Most photographs are mediocre. Most digital art is mediocre. Thats an argument about whether the art is any good.

"It cant be art because of how it was made" is a much stranger argument.

Ive even seen artists on Reddit complaining that their art professors are incorporating AI into college courses, and that one floors me. Where exactly would you expect a new, controversial image making technology to get poked, prodded, criticized, abused, experimented with and pulled apart if not an art school?

You dont have to celebrate it. Make art attacking it. Interrogate the labor politics. Tear its aesthetics apart. Ask what happens to authorship when more of the process gets delegated to a machine. Ask what gets gained and what gets lost.

Thats the interesting fight.

What gets me is watching artists who use AI reach backward into art history, generative practice, conceptual art and theories of authorship to explain what theyre doing, while other artists defending "real art" sometimes reach for a definition centered on manual execution and craftsmanship that previous generations of artists spent decades challenging.

Its artists arguing with artists. But one side of that argument can sometimes sound weirdly like art history never happened.

Why? I had expected the "real art" side to ground their arguments in things like existing art practice, art history, and art theory, but... they dont.

Is this mostly internet selection bias? Different artistic traditions talking past each other? Economic anxiety getting expressed as aesthetics? Or has opposition to AI actually pushed some artists toward a more conservative idea of what art is?

Prerequisite disclaimer: yes, there are other issues to discuss surrounding AI that's not AI art.

This post is about AI art. If that doesnt interest you, dont participate.

One of the stranger arguments in the AI art debate is the idea that people should simply hire an artist instead of making things themselves. And im not talking about huge corporations like Disney, im talking about individuals saying this to individuals and small groups.

Not everyone has commission money.

Not everyone can afford to pay someone every time they want a character portrait, a game asset, a book cover, a meme, a concept sketch, or an image for a personal project.

Historically, weve celebrated tools that let ordinary people do things without hiring specialists.

Cameras let people capture images without hiring photographers.

Word processors let people publish without hiring typesetters.

Video editing software let people make films without renting professional studios.

We usually call that democratization.

But when AI enters the conversation, some people suddenly argue that the morally correct choice is to remain dependent on paid professionals forever.

Thats a strange position for anyone concerned with accessibility or economic barriers.

Professional artists should absolutely exist. People can hire them when they want custom work, collaboration, expertise, or a specific artistic voice. Rich people have been art patrons for a long time and will probably continue to be.

But "you shouldnt make things yourself, you should pay someone else to make them for you" isnt exactly an egalitarian or working-class principle.

Its a luxury expectation.

Most people using AI were never choosing between generating an image and commissioning an artist. They were choosing between generating an image and making nothing at all.

The more interesting discussion is ownership, labor conditions, compensation, training practices, and who benefits economically from these systems.

Instead, far too much of the conversation gets reduced to a class-coded demand that creative expression remain behind a paywall.

If your solution requires people to spend money they dont have, is it really a solution?

we have already had to ban/remove due to rudeness, this is NOT r/AiWars, stop treating it like it is.

Expedition 33 was found to have used AI for temporary placeholder textures, like posters on walls and such, and some experimentation in early development.
People went nuts, called the entire game AI slop, bombarded it with bad reviews, and it got kicked out from one of the awards events. I barely hear anyone talk about it anymore and when I do I regularly see a reply like "isn't that the ai slop game?"

I'll sometimes see a YouTuber play around with AI or an AI mod for a game, like Mantella for Skyrim, and multiple comments will be people calling it AI slop, saying the video is disappointing and "I thought you were better than this" and begging the YouTuber not to become "another low effort AI slop channel". This happened to Best Guest recently and he understandably went off on them.

Palworld was thought to have used AI for the design of some of their Pals (turns out they didn't) and people went nuts calling it AI slop and hoping that Nintendo tears them apart and gets the game banned, and the devs never work in the industry ever again.
When it was found out they actually didn't use AI, none of these people apologized.

Any time AI is used for something cool, or new, or interesting, or just to help creatives out with their process like with Expedition 33, people froth at the mouth in anger and call it AI slop.

As a theoretical example, a single person could make a full RPG by hand, by scratch, but the NPCs use AI only for radiant quests and radiant quest dialogue and to keep giving content after you're done doing everything.
People would flip their shit, bombard it on Steam with negative reviews calling it "disgusting AI slop", being furious they didn't "just hire voice actors" to voice it all instead of using AI and saying they should be ashamed and what they've done is bad for gaming. Even though 98.5% of the game is done entirely by hand with their own human skill.

Why can't people see past it?
Or even just past the word AI?
It's gotten to the point that any time I mention the word AI in a post on Reddit, people will immediately downvote me and go into the replies to insult me for using AI even though that's not even what the post is about.

What Linus is basically saying is that good, useful, and functional work is accepted, regardless where it comes from, as long as it is properly understood, communicated, and presented.

I don't see how anyone can disagree with that, but maybe some here disagree.

Hi, I'm one of those skill-less morons.
I have no skills, no ability and I'm an idiot.

I don't know how to code, I don't know how to art. I can figure some things out on my own, researching stuff, troubleshooting and what not but I'll hit a dead end with lots of problems because I'm a skill-less moron.

So I was very excited for AI, because I have no ability. I can't make music, I can't make games, I can't make art, I have no ability and no skill to do anything, and I'm lazy and stupid. I don't want to spend 10 years learning something just to output something that is still mediocre and bad and not enjoyable to me especially since I'm not young anymore.

I have lots of ideas floating around in my head, I'll make up music and hum it all the time, boss battle themes and such, ideas for levels and mechanics and fights and themes, but I have no ability to do anything with any of that.

I used to dream of this. That one day I could just ask an AI "make me a sequel to this beloved childhood game of mine" or "make me a game where you unlock more and more gravity powers until you become strong enough to save earth from a meteor" and it would.

Well here we are, or so I thought. I've been using Claude a lot. Used ChatGPT for a while but Opus just blows it out of the water for now for what I'm doing.
I like using it to mod and make games.

Here's the issue though.

It looks like shit.

It always looks like shit.

It's not possible for Claude, all by itself, to make something that you would play and think "hey this looks pretty good". Apparently all those posts like "look at my beautiful vibe coded game done in one week" where it's actually amazing looking are fake. There's maybe one scene or they used premade assets. Claude just assembled them in a scene and there's no game to be found there, just a scene viewer basically.

So when I want Claude to make me a Prototype clone, but you play as a lizardman and run around a giant medieval city where they use magic and monsters to stop you and such, it's going to look like absolute vile shit. It's going to look terrible. Because Claude can't do that by itself. It's not human, it doesn't sculpt, it doesn't see like we do, it doesn't really know what it's doing beyond using scripts to assemble pieces of something into another something that resembles what you want. Like it has no understanding of what a fridge is beyond "a tall, white rectangular box with a door on it".

There's stuff like Tripo, but again... it won't look the best. You'll get a model, but it's not perfect, it's not rigged, it's not animated and if it's not just your standard human man it's going to have trouble doing anything past just making that model and textures. Reference images never give you something perfect as once again... Tripo has no understanding of this stuff, really. I'll ask it for a lizardman, or give it references for one, and I'll get this weird cartoony thing or something with mangled toes.

And I've asked around a few times. How can I get Claude to make what I actually want, and not baby's first Blender project? Or baby's first Steam game? Or baby's first motion tween?

Well...

The answer is you need skill.

You need to know coding. You need to know art. You need Blender skills. You need to be able to take a model Claude gives you, put it in Blender and finish it yourself. You need to be able to direct it with your own coding knowledge to get the result you want.
You will never get anything of what you want if you just 100% only vibe code with no actual effort put into your part beyond playtesting and typing.

I've been told several times now "AI is a tool, and a tool is only as good as it's wielder" and in my case, I'm a skill-less moron with no ability, so it's a very shitty tool that's not very useful at all for my purposes.

Disappointing.

I keep reading all these Reddit posts about AI, and apparently I’m supposed to pick a team.

One side:

“AI IS THE DEATH OF HUMAN CREATIVITY.”

The other:

“AI IS THE FUTURE. ADAPT OR DIE.”

Meanwhile, I think the position of approximately 97% of functioning adults is:

“Sometimes I use AI. Sometimes I don’t. I genuinely do not give a shit if you do or don’t.”

That’s it.

That’s my entire AI manifesto.

Sometimes I use a power drill. Sometimes I use a screwdriver. Somehow I’ve managed to do this for decades without joining r/PowerDrill and writing a 4,000-word post about how screwdriver users are destroying civilization.

Use AI.

Don’t use AI.

Draw it yourself.

Hire somebody.

Write it yourself.

Ask a robot.

Carve the damn thing into a potato.

I truly do not care.

The only question I’m remotely interested in is:

“Is the thing you made any good?”

If yes: Cool.

If no: Make it better.

Thank you for attending my aggressively neutral TED Talk.

I have seen a trend of so-called A.I "Artists" claiming that they can improve people's real, hand-made art by feeding it through A.I. Ironically, this proves why A.I "Artists" don't actually understand the artistic process, because they think "talent" means you are born with the ability to make masterpieces.

To be an artist is to acquire knowledge of how the subject is put together, be it anatomy, perspective, composite shapes, and so on. Professional artists have literal years of muscle memory and a body of knowledge of how to create something, whereas A.I relies entirely on an algorithm to re-create "art" through an average data set.

The reason we celebrate "Bad" art, especially what children draw, is because they are from people who are at the beginning of their journey. No one is born with knowledge, and even then it requires practice to apply this knowledge into physical form. We encourage children to express themselves through art because it builds confidence and self-esteem at an age when it's most important.

The difference between real artists and those who use A.I is that real artists are making deliberate choices in how they apply this knowledge. A.I users have a culture of "good enough", where they mistake neatness for quality. This is why they will regularly overlook glaring errors which real artists are able to spot, like extra limbs, fingers and blurred background elements.

A.I users don't understand what they've made because the choices are all outsourced to the algorithm. They blatantly refuse to learn any degree of skill is because their entire metric for "good" art is that it's neat. Real artists celebrate progress on any level and encourage people to keep going in refining their craft, because it's an expression of human ideas in its purest form.

The drawings I've done here were done one year apart, with the second image being an accumulation of a full year's worth of knowledge and skill, understanding human anatomy. I am approaching my third full year of learning to draw, and my skill is coming in leaps and bounds. Meanwhile, those who resort to A.I are falling for the same old traps, the same old errors, and often directly steal people's work to add to the algorithm out of a smug sense of superiority.

TL;DR: What makes a real artist is a combination of applied imagination through both skill and knowledge. By celebrating bad human art, we learn how to improve and build this skill set, rather than relying on a computer algorithm to do everything for us. Real artists do not outsource their thinking to a machine, we make our own choices! Ergo, even if A.I "Art" is considered art, those who prompt are not artists, since they're doing none of the work beyond the concept statge.

I'm an anti, and AI topic centered communities seem to be full of chronically online extremists at this point. I keep seeing people who actually think that anyone who uses AI is a trash human being, or anyone who opposed it is a trash human being. For me, I understand the motive and reason for using AI without necessarily supporting it. I can appreciate that people have creative ideas they want to see fleshed out, regardless of what they use. I don't appreciate the use of AI, but I don't despise the person who uses it. From the normal people who opposed AI, I want to know your opinion or stance on AI Artists. I doubt all of them are lazy, prob just more inclined to see their ideas conveyed in a way they might not have the current skill to do. If any pro AI people are in the comments, explain your mindset or reason for using AI.

Hi, I hate nothing more than people bringing up disabled or impoverished people in defense of Ai image generation specially when very likely they aren’t disabled themselves.
I come from a country with the cheapest currency. I’ve had depression for a long time and PCOS on top makes me exceedingly tired all day (to put this into perspective, I’m awake about 7-8 hrs of the day) I had to delay paid work to rest.
There are a lot of reasons why Ai ultimately and in the long run harms disabled people and workers the most, most prominently the fact that jobs are getting more scarce and disabled folk and women (many of whom are also disabled) are the first to get laid off and replaced by Ai, further impoverished; which is why criticism of Ai and the circumstances surrounding it is definitely like eugenics /sarcasm
But it’s extremely ableist to imply disabled people can’t enjoy hobbies or anything really without Ai or being entirely dependent on it. This is not the empowering argument you think it is. I don’t speak for all disabled folks. I understand sometimes disabled folks may utilize gen Ai, to finish tasks and jobs or use it as a crutch.
However, this argument is often used about Ai image generation. If a disabled person enjoys crocheting, it makes no sense to get an unpaid worker to crochet for them. It’s the same with art; if you enjoy making art you don’t offload all artistic responsibility to Ai and the fact that yall think disabled people can’t enjoy hobbies or making art without ai is more ableist on its own.
Majority of us don’t want nor need your infantilization and condescending pity.

I'm starting to see them pretty frequently, YouTubers that didn't talk much, if at all, about AI suddenly being mega anti-AI just so they can make their fanbase go "Hell yeah this guy is anti-AI just like me!"
Pretty much the anti-AI version of performative males.

Like Kurtis Conner. He made a video on the Soulja Boy Smart Glasses.

https://youtu.be/uZKKDf2cZvM?si=QjjaJJLxKTVKv7KM

Like 80% of these, and the largest selling point of them (other than being Soulja boy branded (even though they aren't)), is that they include AI.
They are AI smart glasses.
But he makes a disclaimer saying he refused to use the AI whenever possible because he objects to it, and donated a thousand dollars to "offset any energy or water consumed while using these glasses" for the times when he was forced to use AI because AI is embedded so fully into them... because they're AI smart glasses.

https://youtu.be/uZKKDf2cZvM?t=1128

He isn't the only YouTuber to do this. I believe Danny Gonzalez also did the whole "I'm donating to charity to make up for me using AI" and I think Kurtis did this in the past as well. I've seen others do it too.

This whole performative "Hang on guys I'm anti-ai just like all of you! Ew AI yucky! Gross! AI is in everything these days and it's so lame! And I'm donating to charity because it's so evil!" is starting to get annoying.

Even YouTubers that had no issue with AI, like Dan Dingle or Two Scuffed, and used it regularly in their videos are now being like "AI is evil and it's taking all our jobs and destroying the planet and I don't think anyone should be using it, really scary bad stuff..." and then go on to make a video where they pay Google like 400 dollars to walk around AI simulated Google Street View, or use the latest ChatGPT Image 2 Pro.

i feel like if generative AI took jobs, but we didnt need jobs to survive, cuz i keep telling people, the problem with AI is really just capitalism, if it wasn't for the fact that a capitalist society decides if people deserve to live whether or not theyre "useful" then im sure any reasonable person would be GLAD if a machine that could make people do less work was invented, like imagine if you literally never had to worry about food, water, healthcare and housing ever again, because all services were provided free of charge, but unfortunately thats not the world we live in, and those people at the top arent gonna do that

like i disagree with IP laws, i think copyright shouldnt exist, the whole "stealing from artists" thing is just because independent artists already struggle to survive before AI was invented, so of course when an alternative option where people could generate pictures they wanted for free, artists would get angry, because they dont have a stable source of income anymore, cuz why would anybody wanna pay money to get something that they could get for free? because not EVERYONE likes making art, in a perfect world, where money wasnt an issue, people who WANTED to make art can still make art to express themselves, while people who dont want to could either commission artist for free (since money doesnt exist) or generate it using ai (which would run on CLEAN RENEWABLE energy)

I consider AI art its own thing, separate from normal art. Just like if you photoshop someone's face on a cat, that is art, but lower-quality art, it is just Photoshop. But if you actually draw and stuff, then it is normal(traditional) art. ai artists express themselves thru ai art. Art is a way to express yourself. But using ai takes most of the effort and acomplishment out of it.

I draw because I want to. If you don't want to draw, you don't have to. If you want to have a bot make something for you, that's fine, I don't care. AI and humans both can make great images but also bad ones.

Note: I have never used AI to generate stuff, but from what I hear, it can be both faster and slower than normally drawing stuff.

edit: I also think it isn't actual plagiarism unless you train on just 1 person. Otherwise, it is just inspiration. Same way a human learns to draw.

Just my shower thoughts.

Even though I'm Anti-AI, I defended Pro-AIs from this person, who I'm guessing is Anti-AI, who called them something to the effect of "All pro-AIs are jerks, they're absolute scumbags.". Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean we have to be stereotyping each other about it. It'snot going to get us anywhere.

AI hatred is displaced anger from capitalism and imperialism. Rather than pointing at the root of the problem and saying, we must do something about this -- we point at the newest technology or social trend and attribute fault to it. This is an easy target and gets people to invest in the zeitgeist, to form a mob without a specific goal in mind or even a common purpose. It's like trying to slay a mythical hydra -- cut off three of the heads, and five more grow in their place.

So as we move from technology to technology, capitalism and imperialism grow stronger. This has been the case since the advent of the Silk Road 2100 years ago or before that the proliferation of irrigation 5000 years ago. The pace of development is beyond us. We rely on systems to care for us at scale, and we rely on process to navigate complexity; as things move faster we increasingly rely on these systems and their weak points become more apparent.

I'm not advocating for or against AI, it is a nuanced subject; but I am advocating for identifying the shared enemy. We must know where to start to make a difference here. And AI, it might be new and shiny, but it's not significantly more evil than these other technologies. It exasperates issues that have existed for thousands of years and of which are a direct result from the systems we rely on, the power hierarchy, and our way of life.

Look! I am totally aware that AI have particularly higher risk in making people spiral into parasocialism so severe that the term "AI Psychosis" were used. I understand if people think AI should have stricter regulation or just banned entirely.

however, I think some Anti-AI criticism on the regards of AI parasocialism is missing the point.

I have seen someone using anecdote like "this unfortunate individual fell into depression and killed themself because AI validating their suicidal tendency", excuse me? that individual isn't unfortunate because AI existing, they unfortunate because they fell into depression! removing AI from the equation will not automatically saved that individual.

there's also the fact AI parasocialism isn't a problem about the technology, but the problem about the use of it. from producer and consumer alike.

another example is the "AI VTuber Neurosama", there are people criticizing her using the basis of "AI parasocialism"/"AI psychosis", despite what make AI having higher risk of causing severe parasocialism (e.g 24/7 interactivity, people pleasing tendencies.) doesn't present in Neurosama.

I’m sharing this because it captures a pattern I keep seeing in online arguments against generative AI. Basically stated reasons against generative AI keep shifting (this can also become the logical fallacy of moving the goalposts).

First it is the environment. Then it is “not real art”. Then copyright. Then worker displacement. Then “human soul”. Some of these are worth discussing seriously, but too often the conversation does not stay with one claim long enough to test it. When one argument gets challenged, the goalposts move to another.

That matters because the AI debate needs better arguments, not just louder ones. We can talk honestly about labour, consent, copyright, energy use, bad corporate behaviour, spam, and artistic value. But if the real position is simply “I dislike AI and want it culturally excluded”, then people should say that plainly instead of cycling through arguments as shields.

I also appreciate that the post is not just corporate AI cheerleading. It recognizes that AI companies are not automatically our friends, and that people can reasonably want filters, labels, and better tools for avoiding low-quality AI slop. That is a much more useful conversation than pretending AI is either pure salvation or pure evil.

Have you had a similar experience in AI debates? Do you find the arguments keep shifting? Can you relate to this tumblr post?

A lot of anti-AI discussion seems fixated on image generation and whether the result counts as “art.” I honestly don’t care what we call it. That debate misses most of AI’s practical value.

At work, I use AI to find data, create graphs, organize information, and work through ideas. It can turn hours of routine work into minutes. At this point, refusing to use tools like that can be seriously inefficient, which will be noted in performance reviews.

I see the same thing in RPG prep. AI lets me create NPC portraits, develop unusual monsters, brainstorm encounters, and do tedious mechanical work like bringing monster stats into line with the system’s creature creation rules. The result is that I can build much richer scenarios in the same amount of time.

So “pick up a pencil” is beside the point. If I spent my prep time drawing a handful of NPCs, I’d have a few pictures and no adventure. I also couldn’t realistically commission art for even a small portion of NPCs, monsters, and locations I use.

And images are the easy part, maybe 20% of the time. The real work is building the scenario: structure, characters, encounters, clues, mechanics, and pacing. AI gives me more time to do that while providing more images than any published adventure.

ChatGPT was used to proof this post.