AI doesn't devalue art, it devalues corporate pablum.

But guess what many artists earn their living off, when they haven't made it with their vocation yet.

Expect a wave of artists moving into education to make ends meet.

> Art is fundamentally a form of communication. AI “art” will never be genuine art until it’s produced by some genuine intelligent being.

So recordings of whale songs are art? IFF whales are intelligent?

And field recordings of factory equipment and wind blowing through leaves are not art?

If a painter paints in the woods and no one's there to see it, is it art? Does it become art when it's seen?

I'm really curious about what people see as the "real" at the heart of art. It seems to be more complicated than mere human creativity. I just like to make things and I enjoy things other people make when they challenge me. I don't understand art.

I’d say whalesong is art in the same way that a photograph of a whale is art. And the artist is the photographer or person recording and producing the whalesong.

We don't know whether a letter from the past was written by a human or by a committee of people who wanted to be trolls and all used the same name together (this happens). We won't know whether intentful communication was written by a robot either.

> AI “art” will never be genuine art until it’s produced by some genuine intelligent being.

The ultimate Turing test?