| ▲ | whilenot-dev a day ago | |
> how soon an AI will be able to make a movie that you, AIPedant, will enjoy as much as you've enjoyed Mulholland Drive As it stands, AI is a tool and requires artists/individuals to initiate a process. How many AI made artifacts do you know that enjoy the same cultural relevance as their human made counterparts? Novels, music, movies, shows, games... anything? You're arguing that the types of film cameras play some part in the significant identity that makes Mulholland Drive a work of art, and I'd disagree. While artists/individuals might gain cultural recognition, the tool on its own rarely will. A tool of choice can be an inspiration for a work and gain a certain significance (e.g. the Honda CB77 Super Hawk[0]), but it seems that people always strive to look for the human individual behind any process, as it is generally accepted that the complete body of works tells a different story that any one artifact ever can. Marcel Duchamp's Readymade[1] (and the mere choice of the artist) gave impact to this cultural shift more than a century ago, and I see similarities in economic and scientific efforts as well. Apple isn't Apple without the influence of a "Steve Jobs" or a "Jony Ive" - people are interested in the individuals behind companies and institutions, while at the same time also tend to underestimate the amount of individuals that makes any work an artifact - but that's a different topic. If some future form of AI will transcend into a sentient object that isn't a plain tool anymore, I'd guess (in stark contrast to popular perception) we'll all lose interest rather quickly. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CB77#Zen_and_the_Art_of_... | ||