| We'll see where it shakes out when it comes to art. Even in myself I'm finding curious emotional responses: I'm now growing less interested in some of the more synthesized / formulaic types of music, and more interested in live performances / recording with real instruments. For visual art that is art, that to me usually needs some human emotion, message, story, path. For "art" that is placeholder or functional, yeah a lot of that may get replaced by AI. My point to this particular article is though, if their sum contribution to the world is the analogue of: 1. Short one-sentence prompt to AI that's basically "piano, but tear-shaped" 2. 37 paragraphs of self-aggrandizing meaningless prose that actively deceives on the accomplishment and status of the thing Then it's not "human creativity" as far as I'm concerned, or at least not one that I want to actively encourage (and in fact, as I mentioned, I want to actively discourage / not partake in). In other words, I'm not saying AI should be doing the kind of things exemplified in that article rather than humans. I'm saying I don't want to see / partake those kinds of things [if not quite "they shouldn't exist":], and it's partially because they don't contribute any human creativity, as far as I'm concerned. That's very different from "not seeing value in human creativity", so I think we may have misunderstood each other there? |
But you're right, we probably misunderstood each other there. You definitely won the argument though :)