These are great platitudes, and as a fellow human I like the idea that only we can create "real" art, but I don't know how to justify that idea. I have no chip on my shoulder about art, it's not part of my identity at all. Computer programming is, though, and I fully expect it to affect my industry in the next decade.

The current fine art market is extremely unmeritorious so I agree that AI art will never make it to the Guggenheim. That isn't a good metric since the human curators will never allow it to happen. The metric will be the industry. Will ai start composing scores for movies? Promotional posters? Art that's sold outside of expensive curated galleries (etsy, ect)?

It's possible that humans will keep their stranglehold on these and I hope that's the case... But I wouldn't bet on it.

I don't know if this is a backhanded comment or not, and I also don't know how much modern fine art you have actually seen IRL, but there are people doing some pretty fascinating things that an AI could not really do, such as "leave a physical painting out in harsh weather for several months, or until you think it's "done", as a treatment." Yeah you can mimic the idea but all you get in the end is a JPG or whatever.

Please look up the definition of platitude. It's not very nice.

I'm not particularly art savvy but I live in a major city and like museums. I have definitely seen modern pieces that I like and are actually though provoking so I'm not trying to say that all modern art is crap (although some of it almost has to be money laundering, but that's another matter)

    Yeah you can mimic the idea but all you get in the end is a JPG or whatever.

Sure, image generation software will never be able to go through the steps that humans go through to do something in physical space. It doesn't even have to be elaborate weathering, Stable Diffusion will never actually stroke a brush. Especially in the infancy of this tech it is extremely constrained to digital representation and simple prints. Even if stuck in its current state I wouldn't consider it novelty-only, but more physically involved means of production will likely become as thing as billions get invested into the tech.

    Please look up the definition of platitude. It's not very nice. 

I double checked the definition and it means what I meant to convey. I don't think it's particularly profound to say (especially without much support) that computers can never create "real" art and will always be bound to the realm of novelty. If you want to define art as something only humans create (and assert that the human involvement isn't sufficient to bring in the "human spirit") then that's a term you can use, it just doesn't mean much... Statements like these are not unusual when machines begin encroaching on some aspect of human life.

Also FYI its not very nice to psychoanalyze why people disagree with you, especially when its a petty reason.

You seem to be playing a game of chess here that I am not interested in playing, but there really isn't anything you've said that is particularly convincing. I'm open to change my tune. Maybe prompting actually is exactly the same as writing a poem for the woman you love, or writing a song after your mother has died. Someday, after billions of dollars are invested in tech, these things will be equal.

I think you've spent too much time smelling and looking at farts (read: fine arts) if you think there's something particularly fascinating about leaving a painting outdoors.

As opposed to a computer creating pixels on a screen? That's particularly fascinating? Gotcha

I think even without AI art we are well past the point of art in famous galleries making sense. Isn't most of this just thinly veiled money laundering anyway?

I imagine we WILL see AI art in a famous gallery for exactly this reason. Except it will be lauded for the imagination of the creator and the tweaks they made, not their drawing ability.

That is an extremely cynical point of view in my opinion