The work a camera does is different than the work a painter would do -- unless the goal is to be absolutely photorealistic, then the camera provides a shortcut to achieving that, yeah. Using GenAI as references is not the same because you are drawing from the output of something that is already a muddled mess of millions of other images and then: are they painting over it? Are they using that generated piece as a starting point? I would like to see a video that shows one of their artist's process in detail and then maybe things would be much more clear on both ends of the discussion.
I'm not completely against AI being used in the industry. I think there's a lot of parts where it makes sense (like who wants to create 5 difference level-of-detail renditions of every asset you've already made). There's busy work and then there's creative work.
And again, the "art" issue aside I'm not sure there's an ethical generative AI model out there right now.
I don't want to be a spreader of doom and gloom, or unwilling to see reason. I know a lot of people, myself included, who aren't all torches and pitchforks but they are disappointed still, and I think it's ridiculous to not have expected some very loud pushback.
