| > As AI's power in the creative fields increase those fields will more and more become a question of who has the most money to throw at AI processing. I think the relevant question that might allay your fear is: why do people make art? The industry that produces commercial art is absolutely on the chopping block, because in commercial art it's the result that's important, not the process. Such art is effectively a commodity, and barriers to the effective synthesis thereof have already been in the process of whittling away for centuries. I think you may be over-indexing on this category, but please correct me if I'm mis-assuming. "True" (for lack of a better word) Art is the expression of self. It's an action or process that's captured in some sensory medium. That doesn't go away. Imagine an artisan who forges handmade sculptures from horseshoes, which were obtained from the farm that she grew up in, themselves forged by her grandfather and worn by the horses in her mother's stable. There is something of herself , her family, and the loved they shared that's in the sculpture. It isn't the most hedonistically-perfect visual sculpture imaginable, but it brings you joy to see it because there's a narrative behind it. AI does not make stuff like this go away. It actually frees more people to become these imbue-ers of meaning, if they are so inclined. AI could describe the sculpture, AI could produce a digital facsimile, and maybe even eventually reforge the metal itself. But it can't imbue it with meaning like a human does. Unless you believe the AI itself is authentically capable of such a thing on equal footing to a human, which I think is still a "victory" for art, albeit a distinct one. |
Yeah, but in that very example I feel the value and narrative behind it is in the memory of the grandfather's toil. When we no longer toil, there will be no horse shoes for our grandchildren to make sculptures of.