You forgot the most important and most common use of art: viewing and listening.

AI can already produce good music, good images. At least I found some that I liked.

And AI doesn't stop you from making art and having fun doing so.

The entire point of art is about human experience. If we’re really going to automate humans out of art (I don’t believe we will), and you really just want to look at some AI pictures that you like, why stop there? Why don’t we just go straight to the brain stem and have AI-administered doses of dopamine?

▲

bufferoverflow 8 months ago | parent | next [-]

That's not the entire point of art. There are many points of art: inspiration, expression, fun, interior design, exterior design, etc.

AI can create art that covers all of the above, except maybe expression.

	▲	eloisius 8 months ago \| parent [-]
		Interior and exterior design are applications of art/design, not reasons. The other three things are human experiences. I’m not saying a human cannot create art using gen AI. In fact, whoever thought of making Gemini generate a “17th century British monarch eating watermelon” created a piece of art as provocative commentary on gen AI itself. But if we remove the artists and just have machines churning out materials to consume, maybe based on some signal of consumer preferences, I do not believe that is art. What fun, inspiration, or expression would be enjoyed by either creator or consumer?

▲

lud_lite 8 months ago | parent | prev [-]

Just give everyone anti depressants!