I've honestly used it for similar reasons myself, so I don't want to sound like a hypocrite here. The complications surrounding image rights on the internet are 90% of why AI images have felt useful for me truthfully. And if it's an article that's going to net me just dollars in profit, what reason do I have to commission an artist or photographer?

But on the other hand, in essence, AI imagery does sort of feel like the same thing as AI-generated text. I want to say that plagiarism is a more a serious offense against writers than visual artists because writing is more about explicit expression of ideas, but I'm definitely biased.

I can't come up with an extremely cohesive argument why AI imagery is different than AI generated writing or music. Is someone who copy & pastes AI content because they're trying to avoid plagiarisim laws around writing really doing something that different in nature? I don't think it's artists' or photographers' fault that these laws can be so tricky to navigate.

Sorry to play devil's advocate here. I definitely see both sides on this issue. I personally don't want to give up AI imagery completely myself. I can never quite get past the feeling, though, that I'm sort of cheating some anonymous person each time I do. How about you?

Thanks for reading, Liberty!!