[birracerveza]

>It won’t kill creativity, it’s just another creative tool.

I've been banging on this drum since AI's inception, and will continue do so.

Even if machines were capable of directly reading our mind and outputting a perfect representation of exactly what we wanted at the mere thought of it, it's still a mere tool bound by the creativity of its artist, even if the artist were the AI itself.

Art is dead. Art is always dead.

Did people complain when digital paintings became a thing?

[aenvoker]

> Did people complain when digital paintings became a thing?

Yes. A lot. All the same complaints. "It's low-effort cheating. The machine does all the work. It's soulless. Art requires a physical process. It looks like crap. It will put 'real' artists out of business."

But then, they also complained loudly when Impressionism became a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gentle_Art_of_Making_Enemi... So, it's good to keep an historic perspective.

[mattkevan]

As far as I can see, the whole history of art is a long argument about whether something can be called art or not. It's always art

As a recent example, Tron was disqualified for a visual effects Oscar because it was all done on computer and therefore seen as cheating, instead of being recognised aa both an incredible achievement and a precursor for the next 40 years of filmmaking. [1]

Imagine the howls when the first film with significant amounts of AI effects is released.

[1]https://www.slashfilm.com/1177735/why-tron-was-disqualified-...