[OJFord]

If you give it the year's headlines and today's newspaper and and ask for a picture that's a social commentary on some current affair, how is that not art?

And you didn't prompt it any more than commissioning a piece, or making a thematic suggestion to a painter friend.

You may not like its art, and it may not come up with some whole new original style, but that doesn't mean it isn't making art in known styles.

TFA is just a bit of a silly fearful protest, IMO.

[giraffe_lady]

Art is an act of human expression.

[OJFord]

Well if you make that your definition then of course it isn't, it's pointless talking or writing articles about, so I still think it's a silly fearful protest.

I just checked Wiktionary, which indeed says it's the 'concious arrangement [of whatever medium]', so it just becomes the same question as whether AI can be conscious, which I think is just pointless semantics, it hinges entirely on how you define it, there's no deeper meaning or interest for that debate to reveal.

[drhodes]

What about the art of elephants? https://elephantartgallery.com/

[rpdillon]

Humans express themselves through tools.

[giraffe_lady]

Sure. And no one is arguing like "does a paintbrush make art" "does a camera make art." I'm not saying people can't use AI as a tool to make art I'm saying AI can't make art.

[rpdillon]

I'm not particularly interested in gatekeeping art, but that makes perfect sense to me, so I think we fundamentally agree.

[becquerel]

Humans are not metaphysically special entities, any more than the Earth is a special planet.

[giraffe_lady]

We're the type specimen for a category that has no other known members. Possibly at some point we'll need to extend the category of "person" beyond "human" but for now using them interchangeably seems fine.