>>94711626I think what we're seeing is a divide in schools on whether art is the end product itself or the process that led to it. There's a difference in values over the end result vs the craftsmanship. People in support of AI don't really care about the individual's skills because those are imagined and not experienced. The end result is what we experience and the way in which we got to experience it doesn't matter to that side. People against AI value intangible aspects of the creation process, usually out of empathy because they have tried to do it themselves.
Imagine if we had technology to record and share actual dreams as video, which isn't out of the realm of possibility. In the past art has often been an attempt to capture and recreate dreams, whether in painting or movies. Many have described David Lynch's work as having very dreamlike qualities and so his work is appreciated as like watching a dream. If we could suddenly capture the raw essence of a dream, without the craftsmanship involved that was previously necessary just to simulate the idea, would that be appreciated in the same way, just because it originates from another? Its truer and purer to what previous mediums were trying to replicate. I think the argument would be basically the same as to whether dream-recordings were art or not.
I feel like AI art is essentially machine dreams for an intelligence construct that is currently exclusively able to dream and not really able to have consciousness yet. Yet, because it is not "human" there is a stronger emotional divide for the sides that say the end result is art or the process is the art. People romanticize being human and take offense at alien things intruding upon human spaces.
