The original question was "is human art more of greater value than AI art?"By that metric it can have artistic value becuase it's a human operating the AI. As long as they have something clever or meaningful to say with it, it can be meaningful in the same way the toilet is.
For example, I'd argue that the way the Twitch streamer and youtuber wayneradiotv uses it has artistic value because he uses it cleverly. Maybe not a huge amount of artistic value, but at least as much as standard youtube fare
You could also ask is an original piece of art of greater value than a fake or a replica? If so, why?Is human art of greater value than ai art? If so, why?
Or, more simply: why is human expression valued?
Rhetorical question. I was making a point, not asking a question.Because we are self-aware and have emotion that goes into our art and other creations. For example, the RPG stuff you create will always have more value than anything created solely by any AI or Bot, at least until they achieve Data levels of awareness and self-function. And even then, he still needed an emotion chip installed to be equal to humans in that area.
Conventional wisdom would seem to say yes, but when you look at digital art and really examine what's happening the answer is probably no. Every time you move a file between drives you're making a copy and deleting the original. Every time you move files between servers you're making a copy. For digital art even what passes as the master copy is probably a copy of a copy of a copy. Traditional art differs but that's arguably a matter of resolution; a photograph of the mona lisa doesn't copy the painting atom for atom; if you somehow did copy the painting atom for atom, isotope for isotope, there would be no way to even say which was whichYou could also ask is an original piece of art of greater value than a fake or a replica? If so, why?
If we accept the implication of this is it raises the followup question: Is there any justice at all in the film and recording industries being so much more profitable and respected than live performers?You could also ask is an original piece of art of greater value than a fake or a replica? If so, why?
Why is a Van Gogh more valued than a photocopy I made of a tree?
I agree as such, however it's important to understand that this is a matter of degrees. The prompt is a human artifact, and it likely came from an emotion and may well create an emotion in the viewer, and it requires every bit as much skill and mastery as anything created by Jackson PollockHumans can, in fact, use AI, just like any tool, to make art. But I would argue that putting a prompt into an LLM to create a "watercolor painting of a lake" does not have the same value as actually producing a watercolor of a lake
Wow, and I absolutely disagree. I feel like you are communicating a really reductive view of art and artists as just creators of products and ignoring the fact that art is expression, movement, social response, and an almost uniquely human endeavor.I agree as such, however it's important to understand that this is a matter of degrees. The prompt is a human artifact, and it likely came from an emotion and may well create an emotion in the viewer, and it requires every bit as much skill and mastery as anything created by Jackson Pollock
This is the most crucial part imo. It is easy for many to reject 100% AI art based on prompting alone. But AI as part of a creative process? Giving AI original concept art, generating many developed versions, and then modifying those into a final product?I agree as such, however it's important to understand that this is a matter of degrees.