Setting aside the usual arguments on the anti- and pro-AI art debate and the nature of creativity itself, perhaps the negative reaction that the Redditor encountered is part of a sea change in opinion among many people that think corporate AI platforms are exploitive and extractive in nature because their datasets rely on copyrighted material without the original artists’ permission. And that’s without getting into AI’s negative drag on the environment.
My complaint about AI here, if we will set the enormous scale of theft to one side, is simply that it is being used to create art that doesn’t mean anything, which is inimical to the pursuit of art itself.
Thank you.
The meaninglessness and soulelessness is a big part of the problem with AI art.
It has no more “point of view” than a random number generator.
So it won’t be popular. But then there is AI art that’s popular isn’t there? Did a landscape have a point of view when someone took a picture of it? No. But the photographer and everyone that saw something in it afterwards did. The viewer can give the piece meaning. It’s well known that art is subjective. That means you, the subject, determine if what you’re seeing is evoking emotion.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think the brain is magic. So someday something synthetic will have a complex opinion and express it metaphorically. Maybe we’re already there, just not on a human level. Could a rat make art? Because at some point soon computers are going to be on the spectrum of intelligence of a living thing, if it’s not already.
