[lawls]

The AI of today is just a probability engine, as far as I am concerned. It can create nothing original because it cannot say, "No, I'm starting over from scratch. I alone will figure this out." Once you set an AI in motion, it will complete the task until it needs further input. And the very fact that it is reliant on an external actor continues to enforce just how pre-determined the outcomes already are. Art, I feel, from my human perspective, should be a reflection of its creator. The product is of their mind. No machine is capable of such action, currently.

[foundress]

true. I believe even if AI had its own perspective outside a human one, we would still relate more to a human experience and art would be predominantly a human endeavor.

[lawls]

For some reason I've got Velvet Buzzsaw on my mind now for art talk, which could an AI do and accurately mean? Anything that cannot disregard its own orders, is a calculated machine, in my book; just a calculator from Texas Instruments.

[foundress]

hmm, just thought of Abramovic' Rhythm Zero experiment. I wonder what that would look like if the object was the AI