[77pt77]

> "looks shiny but is lacking in any real creativity or artistic expression."

My experience with that is that artistic milieus now sometimes even explicitly admit that the difference is who created the art.

"Human that suffered and created something" => high quality art

"The exact same thing but by a machine" => soulless claptrap

It's not about the end result.

A lot could be written about this but it's completely socially unacceptable.

Whether an analogous thing will happen with beautiful mathematical proofs or physical theories remains to be seen. I for one am curious, but as far as art is concerned, in my view it's done.

[NickM]

Truly great art, the kind that expands the field of artistry and makes people think, requires creativity; if you make something that's just a rehashing of existing art, that's not truly creative, it's boring and derivative.

This has nothing to do with whether a human or AI created the art, and I don't think it's controversial to say that AI-generated art is derivative; the models are literally trained to mimic existing artwork.

[77pt77]

Creativity in AI art production is a fancy term for temperature that adds no semantic value.

Your "creativity" is just "high temperature" novel art done by the right person/entity.

This was something already obvious to anyone paying attention. Innovation from the "wrong people" was just "sophomoric", derivative or another euphemism, but the same thing from the right person would be a work of genius.