[Jtarii]

An LLM cannot make art because it isn't human. It can make "art like artifacts". Art involves one human communicating some emotional experience to another human, LLMs cannot experience human emotion, so they cannot make art.

The process of making art is not a subset of hill climbing optimisation algorithms.

[nylonstrung]

The natural world is full of things that area beautiful and breathtaking without having come from "human emotion".

The plumage of a peacock is beautiful and awe-inspiring beyond most human made art, and it is genuinely the result of evolutionary hill climbing on a fitness landscape

[int_19h]

By this definition most of our culture isn't art because it's made not to "communicate some emotional experience" but to induce one in order to make money. 90% of pop music is like that, for example. And LLMs can do that just as well - better, probably, since they know all the psychological tricks from their training data.

[Capricorn2481]

No, even the most cynical pop music is going to carry more emotional resonance with the average person, because art is a social contract between the Creator and audience. Even if you are keenly aware that any perceived bond with an artist is parasocial, humans get a fundamentally different experience if they think a real human was behind it.

It has nothing to do with quality. Artists that use AI are going to need to hide it because people will enjoy it less knowing it's AI. It's that simple. Maybe that will change in 15 years if a new generation is trained to believe learning a skill is stupid or embarrassing. I wouldn't rule that out, these companies are already trying to convince people not using their products is morally bad.