[empath75]

There are two arguments about AI art, one of them is trivially reducible to the “is sampling/collage art”. If you are spending time expressing something using AI produced components then you are producing art, and probably the amount of time you spend working on it (either developing your skills or creating the work) roughly will correlate to how much value others see in it. It’s no different than building a hip hop track out of drum loops.

The second question is more interesting, which is “does raw AI produced artwork have any artistic value” and I am going to punt on the “artistic” part of that equation and answer the “value” part with no, and not because people might not enjoy it, but it falls victim to the classic “my five year old could so that” critique of modern art, except in this case it is true. Anybody can go to an AI and produce some mediocre media.

Where this gets interesting again is _volume_. What AI unlocks is exactly that anybody can create songs, videos and images for _themselves_. The value of it is probably the pennies worth of time ajd expense they put into it, but it might he worth it for them to make something, be mildly amused by it and immediately dispose of it.

You wanted some shadowrun themed music, you got it and enjoyed it. You made something of value only to yourself, but that seems okay? Multiply that times billions of people probably eventually people might luck into something genuinely good and worth sharing from time to time.

[themafia]

> is sampling/collage art

Yes.

You will owe royalties.

The latter part is the actual problem.

[jjfoooo4]

> people might luck into something genuinely good and worth sharing from time to time.

A) it would be impossible to find in a sea of AI generated slop

B) even if it were to be recognized as good, it would be instantly copied by other AI’s such that it would be very shortly thereafter be also considered slop

For any work to gain traction with an audience, there needs to be scarcity. Art and artists are valued because they are unique in some way, something about it or them cannot be replicated by others. The ability to instantly produce a piece of “art” negates any artistic value, at least as far as audiences are concerned.

[spongebobstoes]

it's already impossible to find good music in a sea of slop. that's been the case for decades at this point

as with all art, the hardest part is discovery

artificial scarcity is indistinguishable from greed

[theshackleford]

> it's already impossible to find good music in a sea of slop. that's been the case for decades at this point

I’ve found some of my favourite music in the last decade, during a time in my life by which it’s generally considered that your tastes are set.

[karel-3d]

Well. We Are Charlie Kirk is a true art. So, you are wrong.

[HDThoreaun]

I think your starting definition of value is basically worthless. Value is not about what things cost to make, but what people are willing to pay for them. You reached this conclusion by the end of your comment, but I think it's important to emphasize. My friend group has created incredible value with suno, mostly making meme songs we forget about after a day, but every once in a while we create lasting memories that have real emotional impact. It doesnt matter that anyone can do that, I dont think that cheapens the output at all.

[Mordisquitos]

The value you are getting is not from the music as an artistic product, but from the social connection and entertainment it offers your friend group. The meme songs and lasting memories you are getting are fungible with regards to other entertaining and emotionally salient creations you and your friends may share with each other, and not with regards to other pieces of music.

[empath75]

My comment was mostly that it lacks value to _others_. It was probably worth to your friend group roughly the time and money you spent on it. Nobody else is ever going to care.

[senordevnyc]

So like 99.9999% of all music and art?