Comment by deadbabe
6 days ago
> Or they're what you call "a professional artist," aka "people who produce art so good that other people are willing to pay for it."
If this is okay, then why isn’t an AI that produces art so good that other people are willing to pay for it also not okay? They are equivalent.
Who said that's not okay?
The problem with AI-produced art is its potential to supplant human art, i.e. to destroy the incentive for any human to gain artistic mastery.
Here's how they're not equivalent: if you take human inputs out of AI, it disappears. If you take AI inputs out of human art, basically nothing changes.
If you need incentive to pursue artistic mastery, you will never really be a true master. I think you’ve failed to articulate any kind of real problem with AI art replacing human art, you just don’t like it personally so you want to see it gone.
> If you need incentive to pursue artistic mastery, you will never really be a true master.
Deploying fortune-cookie wisdom to defend against allegations of astounding ignorance of the real world is... a choice.
Which "true masters" didn't do do art commercially? According to your theory, not only should this list be of non-zero length, but it should include every master. So please tell me which ones.
12 replies →