Is A.I. Art Stealing from Artists?
I am exhausted form this discussion. Regardless of how well researched and written this specific article might or might not be, the greater discussion is a lot of bad faith arguments from both sides. There&#x27;s even less room now for respectful discussion than there was 3 months ago. I doubt I am the only one that feels this way. I want a ruling as fast as possible, so we can start having more nuanced discussions.<p>The more existential question this lead me to ask is, what aspect of art makes it valuable to me. I believe that the most meaningful art comes from someone that is able to communicate an experience to others through an abstract representation of it. I feel most connected to art that invokes really intense emotions and memories. I personally don&#x27;t understand the value placed in most classical paintings, maybe it&#x27;s a consequence of growing up with the internet. Art is not as scarce as it once was and while the process of creating art is absolutely valuable, the final piece is how other people will experience it.<p>But everyone experiences and appreciates art differently, the only universal truth about art is that it&#x27;s really hard to predict how it will be recieved. I think artists will be the people who would most benefit from AI tools. Similar to ChatGPT, the quality of input directly impacts the quality of the output. I think people that would otherwise sympathize with the other side will get burned out, if they haven&#x27;t already. I put AI art related keywords in my twitter filter. I realized I get more frustrated from the constant bad faith arguments from either side much more than the underlying issue.<p>You can create meaningful art using AI, they&#x27;re not two mutually exclusive things.