"We assume creative writing requires uniquely human qualities, such as emotional understanding and lived experience, which leads people to underestimate AI's capabilities."

It's not about the relative "creativity" of it. Art is fundamentally about communication. It's a social activity, whether you're reading a book or listening to music or looking at a painting. Even a mid-average author is going to make something more compelling, on a human level, than extraordinary prose generated by a machine.

AI-generated creative artifacts are as interesting as the fractals in a snowflake. Interesting, sometimes beautiful, but void of human meaning.

▲

altruios 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Is art what is generated, or is art what is in the eye of the beholder? Do we find artistry in nature?

What does it say about us that the sum average of us disgusts us on a visceral artistic level, is that the machine's fault for reflecting us accurately?

	▲	danielvaughn 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Art is a social activity whereby a human uses their creativity to produce an artifact that expresses some aspect of their experience, using non-standard forms of communication. It's a way of signaling to others "do you see what I see? do you feel what I feel?" The beauty of art exists on two layers: the aesthetic quality of the work, and the sense of shared experience among those who consume the art. We find aesthetic beauty in nature; we do not find artistry.