And you're telling me that as long as you believe a human struggled and went through a process, the nature of the outcome is irrelevant. Hence a Monet piece is instantly slop if one believes an AI created it. That rings true. But it also explains the perception that Piss Christ was art instead of rubbish.

We just disagree as to whether an AI can write a script for a human to portray a struggle that never happened and that a human actor can make you believe it. This almost demands a performance art piece to do exactly that. The art of course being in the performance by a human until it can be replaced by an indistinguishable robot. And then the artist becomes the robot's creator I guess. Why it's creators all the down, no?

I guess we also disagree about all these lines in the sand you keep drawing when it's seemingly entirely subjective experience of a world that may or may not exist according to Plato's Cave.

And sure, I love concerts, I love live performances, but I also love to listen to a much wider range of music when I'm not in a theatre. I can understand that you might feel differently, but we are all entitled to our own opinions and tastes. And what we do in our own lives if it isn't hurting others anymore than anyone else in the west is doing with their egregious carbon footprints is none of your business.

Not sure what you are claiming here:

That authentically human communication and experiences can be artificially generated? But that is a contradiction in terms.

The outcome is not independent of the process. It will always show through.

And I don't draw such lines in the sand. I am saying an experience that would be perceived as authentic human communication can be artificially generated until proven otherwise. Good luck with that.

I really wonder if humanity will be able to process alien life when it finally encounters it. Because it's likely to have a very different origin story, nature, and outlook.

Yeah, what you're saying is true but only to the extent of simulacra AI can produce. But it's not really art if you know what I mean, it's an artefact of training on other people's art.

So what I do with AI art is start with a photo I took. I then extract its Lin Canny lines or other descriptive features algorithmically. From there, I apply various models to re-express the image in an interesting way. IMO it looks more like Digital Art out of photoshop and I would refute any claim that this isn't remotely artistic given I was the one that took the photo that is the base image. And it doesn't end up looking like obvious AI art, but rather more Andy Warholish than anything else IMO.

And sure, the model was trained on other people's art but so are we.

It may not be your cup of tea, but it's a lot more effort than typing in a prompt and calling it a day. But, ya know, Rembrandt and Hans Zimmer were the OG prompt engineers in their respective media IMO.

> It may not be your cup of tea, but it's a lot more effort than typing in a prompt and calling it a day.

Yeah, you have to type in 3 prompts instead of just 1.

I'm going to love watching this melodrama play out over the next few years.

> Only someone with little appreciation of music will describe the difference between an actual performance and an AI generated one as "human-level BS".

Unfortunately, this seems to apply to quite a few people on HN, and for all types of art in general. I fear this worldview (or maybe the common root cause) is what leads to the all too prevalent lack of care or outright disdain for people and society in general we're seeing from the tech industry (amongst others) these days.