I find the AI Art debate very interesting. Should it be praised as art? Is it a cheap ripoff that cheapens the “real deal”?
I don’t know. All I know is I’ve seen AI art so beautiful and unique that I can’t bring myself to condemn it. I like what I’m seeing. I still respect the commitment to “real” art. I like both. Is it wrong to like both?
I agree with you. There’s some amazing AI generated art.
The issue is that it’s not the AI’s art. All AI generated imagery is ripped off of one or more real artists. You could ask the philosophical question, “well, isn’t all human art, too?” The difference is that, at the moment, humans have something that AI doesn’t: a vision, an intention, a desire to communicate. Current AI is literally just a stochaistic generator with a little randomness; there’s no internal dialog, desire, intention, or even understanding.
Some day, GAI will have those things, and then I think we will be faced with the question of originality and creativity. But right now, AI-produced art is no different than a particularly aesthetic rock you found in the woods that was created by environmental elements. Half Dome is undeniably beautiful, but is it “art?”
How would “a vision” make it less of a ripoff? If I’m just making art to fulfill my employers demands and nothing more, that doesn’t suddenly make it a “ripoff” of all the artists that I learned from.