I have generated AI art that inspired wonder/emotion in me because it was so interesting to look at. It may be a derivative, but because I don't know the original inspirations, what I saw was new to me and thus I had a brand new subjective experience. I'd be interested to hear your take on this. Not using blanket statements, just thinking about on an individual level.
What is the difference between me seeing AI-generated art and person-generated art if I don't know or care about the source, and the end result is the same? A novel, subjective experience that is different for me than other people due to my memory, experiences, and path through life. Is it still a net negative in that situation, or still just a "fancy curve fitting algorithm"? Or is it just... art at that point?
How you experience art is not the same question as whether or not the output of an AI model is art.
It is interesting that ai generated images evokes those emotions in you. I find them souleless and same-y for the most part. But as you pointed out, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
But yes, to me what makes art is the human behind it or the experience of consuming it. Both can be art. But without both, you have products. Its why even in a distant or not so distant future where ai generated music is topping charts and many people are enjoying it, those same people are unlikely to go to a concert for such things. There will be some people that would of course and its interesting to imagine what an ai concert would look like but part of going to concerts nowadays is to support a band you love, feel the energy from them performing live, from the crowd, feeling the passion for the music they wrote ooze out of them. With ai generated music, you won't get that though consuming the songs may invoke similar feelings as it the ai generated image did for you.
Oddbean new post about login | logout