This is something different entirely. We're outside of the "human sphere" so to speak.

>Humans like what they like and seldom judge an artwork for its process (outside of a very small niche community).

That's true, but how do you zoom out of process? This is beyond process. I would just say most people don't like inhuman things.

> We're outside of the "human sphere" so to speak.

Can you elaborate on this a bit? Because this is what I don't get.

It's a non-human algorithmic mish mash of a bunch of stuff, there is no human quality to it or years of effort to reach new heights. AI will not make "new" music in the sense that it will make a trumpet song that escapes our current understanding of a trumpets limit like how a once in a generation player will come along and move the ceiling up.

It's an omellete. There is no Dolly Parton behind an AI Jolene or a Michael Jackson turning a 4 track tape into a musical masterpiece. The journey and personalities are what contextualize the sound, without AI that context is gone. That's why I think it will just be used for cafes and things like that where they want to escape licensing fees.

As for consumers - I believe people will see AI music consumption as a way of supporting the new technological powers that be, and the act of listening to human-made music will have an element of counter-culture baked into it. I'm a professional musician and I have a very physical reaction to sound. Once I know it's AI my goosebumps fade.

Another lame incarnation of a tech that will also fade like crypto and everything else. The types of personalities who will leverage this tech are not the same personalities that make the greats.

I'm not worried.

In this post, I can summarize two points you are trying to make. One, it takes less effort, and two it doesn't fit into our current understanding of how art creation narratives work. I don't see how that precludes a piece from being good/bad. I feel like you are arguing for your personal opinion (if not your image of what the world should be) as if it's some kind of objective truth. Your goosebumps might have faded but when I heard this post in a half sleepy state, I got goosebumps when my sleepy mind figured out its fully AI generated. But that doesn't add to the argument either way.

I love art made by non-human intelligences. I especially love how it can transcend and redefine loved mediums by combining them in surreal ways that are otherwise quite difficult to obtain. Algorithmic exploration of mediums outpaces mere mortal "effort" in its efficiency and in doing so raises the bar for what constitutes media worth giving our attention to.

AI Art is second-order human art. From this viewpoint it's still human by proxy.

And anyway, is it measurably different from art produced while tripping on LSD or in similar states of altered consciousness, such as schizophrenia, dementia, or even depression, which often produce things many people would not describe as regular?

People hang commercial art in their homes all the time, and that's essentially design-by-committee.

I see no reason that someone wouldn't hang an AI poster print in their AirBnB that's abstract, or even a "commission" based on the property and its locale.

Same reason for AI music. Your store needs a bit of music to set a vibe, but with AI it can be free of copyright and performance licensing, and again, be tailored to your location, products, clientele, the day of the week, etc.