[hellofunk]

I entirely agree with you. It's one thing for computers/AI to emulate the creative work that humans have already achieved, essentially copying, or porting, or manipulating prior art, but it's something else entirely to genuinely create something new and fresh and connects with people emotionally, and I have yet to see any evidence that AI is close to this.

[krapp]

Most modern art isn't made to great something new and fresh... it's mass produced pastoral stuff like Thomas Kinkade or connected to a multimedia franchise (book covers, movie posters, game art, etc.) and a lot of that is certainly formulaic and derivative.

Maybe AI isn't able to copy human technique well enough yet but whether it succeeds or fails will have little to do with whether or not it creates work that resonates emotionally like classic art, because that's no longer the purpose of the vast majority of art that people encounter.

And I would argue that human beings, for the most part, copy other human beings anyway. Working within a "genre" and using cultural references and even recognizable techniques are all essentially copying or at least adapting what came before.

[hellofunk]

I guess it depends on how broad a definition of "art" we are using.