Since the public introduction of AI-generative technologies in Nov 2022, specifically AI-gen imagery (as I fight the conflation of the same as being ‘photography.’). I have continuously asked in the open, "Why was there a deliberate goal to make generative imagery?

I was asking myself the question again today as I was thinking about the extreme cost in terms of the hardware, time, and energy needed (and potential environmental impact, ethical, disinformation generation, and other ills as mentioned here...and of course, the public mea culpa facades while their lobbyists are busy with legislative capture.).

This is hardly the first time I have seen ethereal open-ended statements alleging promises of new applications, never specified (and, yes, I read your other piece on cybersecurity, an issue I find odd because AI is. and will continue to be, a major causative factor thus creating a circular problem/solution. Clever.). I do not believe these new toys were just spontaneously developed, done simply because they could be done, but are the product of a preconceived idea toward a desired end for a specific purpose other than just “research.” Why else go through all this expense and the concerns being raised, particularly regarding the desire to produce idiotic chat and imagery with the holy grail desire to achieve photorealism?

The present chat and image generative models are a dangerous joke. How about the creators and their compliant commentating cheerleaders providing examples, or at least substantive discussion in widely-read general media, about these alleged new applications?

Where is the journalism digging into the unspoken purpose of why all this was conceived and for what purposes?