Get fuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked
“This isn’t going to stop,” Allen told the New York Times. “Art is dead, dude. It’s over. A.I. won. Humans lost.”
“But I still want to get paid for it.”
Get fuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked
“This isn’t going to stop,” Allen told the New York Times. “Art is dead, dude. It’s over. A.I. won. Humans lost.”
“But I still want to get paid for it.”
I don’t think it is a particularly ineffable quality though? It’s art because another human did it, and it really doesn’t have to be much deeper than that. That said, I do agree that intellectual property is ultimately blind alley. What most people don’t understand is that IP laws are only enforceable in the name of capital.
I think I disagree with the idea that art is art because a human created it. I think art is art because it provides a particular kind of experience to us as humans. Whether or not a human made the art by hand, with a machine, or if it was simply an item someone found in nature it’s all still art. Even curating art is art.
That said AI art is still a product of human creativity. It’s abstracted by a few layers of technology sure and most of the people that build or use the models don’t know what good art is. However bad art is still art. People get drunk at paint nights and create shitty imitations of famous paintings but it’s still art as reticent as I am to admit it.
For sure a person can curate AI art, and maybe even communicate something about the human experience with it. But, compared to a traditional painting, where every brush stroke tells the story of its creation, there’s just so much less bandwidth for that sort of expression. And in this case it would be the statement itself that is the art, not the ‘painting’.
The “human intelligence is just a sufficient number of TI-88 calculators bolted together, actually” type of bazinga arguments (as often proclaimed by occult-tier techbros like “FrightfulHobgoblin”) may exist in part to try to reject that idea.