I would suggest that it is due to perceived utility. For code to be useful it has to work. For art to be useful it has to… do something else which is much harder to quantify. But perhaps it is about connecting the human condition?
Yet I’m using AI-created illustrations for my graphic novel, fully aware of copyright and legal debates.
Both Copilots and art generators are trained on vast datasets—so why do we cheer one and vilify the other?
We lean on ChatGPT to rewrite blog posts and celebrate Copilot for “boosting productivity,” but AI art still raises eyebrows.
Is this a matter of domain familiarity, perceived craftsmanship, or simple cultural gatekeeping?