[viraptor]

> It’s unfortunate that art selects so strongly for skill. Can we decorrelate the two?

I really like this direction. I understand why some object to the genai approaches, but in practice sometimes I get an idea of something cool and don't have the skills to create it myself. I'm not going to invest months/years to create each of those ideas and they're not important enough to spend hundreds of dollars that a skilled artist would request. Now there's a way people can try generating the thing and may end up enjoying it - and that's great. (At least for personal use, it gets a bit complicated for commercial purposes)

[d0gsg0w00f]

This is assuming an unimplemented idea has value. I think the value we attribute to an idea is actually the dissemination of the idea to others. Often a sufficiently radical idea is difficult for others to grasp and therefore an example must be created by the originator of the idea.

So when someone says "That's a great idea" what they mean is "That's great work".

Time will tell if others see an idea backed by AI work as valuable. Can they even tell? Who knows.

[happymellon]

But unfortunately they did not.

Not everyone could build what is presented here, and inadvertently they have validated that it requires skill to produce a machine that distorts your reality. The pictures being produced isn't the art.