I’ve been thinking about where the boundary really is with modern AI image editing. I’ve used Photoshop for years, and even heavy retouching still felt like my hand was visible in the final image. With newer AI tools, especially ones that add depth or reconstruct parts of a photo automatically, I sometimes feel more like I’m approving decisions than making them. At what point does the process stop being “my” artwork and turn into something closer to a technical output? I’m genuinely curious how others here define that line based on their own experience.
This is something I struggle with too, mostly because I actually use a couple of AI generators in my workflow when I’m experimenting or doing quick concept drafts. For example, I’ve played around with tools like this one: deepsukebe — not as a finished-art solution, but more like a sketching partner. What I’ve noticed is that the “art” part doesn’t disappear automatically just because AI is involved. It disappears when you stop making choices.
When I’m lazy and just accept the first output, the result feels empty and generic. But when I iterate, tweak inputs, discard results, and combine them with manual edits, it still feels creative. To me, it’s similar to photography: the camera does a lot of work, but framing, timing, and intent still matter. The danger zone is when people present raw AI output as personal expression without reflection. That’s where it starts feeling less like art and more like automation pretending to be art.
Art has always absorbed new tools, from darkrooms to digital brushes. AI just makes that tension more visible. For me, what matters is honesty and intention. If someone uses AI to explore an idea and is clear about the process, I’m fine with calling it art. If it’s used thoughtlessly or deceptively, it feels hollow. The tool itself isn’t the problem; how mindfully it’s used usually is.
