[FrustratedMonky]

All artists of every stripe have studied other art, have practiced what has come before, and have influences. What do you think they do in art school; they copy what came before. The old masters had understudies, that learned a style. Is it not an old saying in art that ‘there is nothing original’. Everything was based on something.

Humans are also regurgitating what they ‘inputted’ to their brain. For programming, isn’t it an old joke that everyone just copy/paste's from stack overflow?

Why if an AI does it (copy paste), it is somehow now a lesser accomplishment than when a human does it.

[rchaud]

> Why if an AI does it (copy paste), it is somehow now a lesser accomplishment than when a human does it.

Because the kind of 'art' the AI will create will end up in a Canva template; it will be clip art for the modern Powerpoint or Facebook ad. Because corporations like Canva are the only ones that will pay the fees to use these tools at scale. And all they produce is marketing detritus, which is the opposite of art.

Instead of the "Corporate Memphis" art style that's been run into the ground by every big tech company, AI will produce similarly bland, corporate-approved graphics that we'll continue to roll our eyes at.

[britch]

It's a fair point.

My concern is with the limitations in the creation of new styles.

I guess my view is that you send 100 people to art school and you get 100 different styles out of it (ok maybe 80).

With AI you've got a handful of dominant models instead of a unique model for each person based on life experience.

Apprentices learn and develop into a master. If that works is all moved to an LLM, where do the new masters come from?

---

I take your point about the technology. I have a hard time saying it's not impressive or similar to how humans learn.

My concern is more with what widespread adoption will mean