Well, I think that's the crux of the matter, AI can never be creative as a human can be creative... but it can emulate the results with high fidelity, so as to supplant it. Breaking art down to its components and replicating it.
And yes, as of today, AI is merely a tool, and as such for now it will do only what it is commissioned to do, but all along it's learning. And the question becomes how much will the artist begin to pass on to the machine. I personally use rendering software a lot, and that is passing painting to a machine that does it in seconds, so I understand the AI as a tool to make life more efficient, but I am selling the renderings as renderings and no one is trying to convince themselves that they're real life, nor am I allowing the software to design what is being rendered.
I totally agree, unless the AI is sentient and can receive "inspiration" to create from DCM. After all where do humans get their creativity from? Are we not machines ourselves, but with a soul and a connection to DCM, which is where I believe creativity comes from, through us not from us, if that makes sense?
Again I agree, if you want make something exactly as you see it in your mind then make it yourself, thats why Ai wont replace human artists altogether, it can't' read your mind and it can't "create" only modify and copy and combine (atm)
for me the point is the randomness of it, the not knowing what you are going to get, and then, at least for me, to change things to suit what I am doing. I change the face for example and use a photograph I've taken of a model, then I'll add other elements, do some colour grading etc
I think we've come to a point beyond that, where we went from printing art created by a human.. to allow the machine to create the art piece and then print it, cutting off the human entirely.
Yes indeed, this is happening, question is, will be people want it? Will they pay for it?
Also, yes, I'm sure there are people who are trying to pass AI art off as their own creations, trying to dupe people that they created it. Sure, there are always going to be people who take advantage as with any technology. Question is, does it matter to the people buying it? If the person says this is AI then it's a choice whether to buy it or not, if they pretend it's their own work then it's based on a a lie, which is detrimental, I agree! But what makes it AI or not, how much of it is AI generated and how much is a composite.
And I don't know if I entirely agree with the removal from the artist because of the medium, if I listen to a song on my phone, or my car.. I still connect to the musician, sometimes unconsciously, on the other side. So long as the medium remains a passive delivery method, I think the connection can remain, it's when the medium expands and takes more roles from the artist that the connection gets lost.
Perhaps put another way, and since you're a musician yourself, how much of your music would you be comfortable with, if parts of it were created by an AI that simply composed something after you wrote a few lines on a computer screen? Again, mixing, and post production, equalizing, recording.. it will all be done by machines, but those remain passive. It's the composition part of the music that is yours, that others connect to when they listen to it through whatever medium, and that is what AI is aiming to take over.
I tend to agree, but it is a point worth considering IMO, what is the point of separation? How will we know? Does it actually matter to most people? Do they actually care who or what creates art as long as they "like" it? All questions I'm pretty sure we will find out soon enough, as the AI thing is only getting stronger.
I guess one could also argue that most of what passes for music (in the mainstream charts) is pretty formulaic/robotic and in some cases very AI based. Take for example the recent signing of the AI rapper to capitol records, the record company did drop the "artist" a few days later, but not because of the AI but because it was misappropriating black artists!?
Capitol Records Signs Synthetic Rapper FN Meka to a Record Deal - Voicebot.ai
Unfortunately this is already happening, and will be more so in the near future from what I understand. For me personally, I use AI when i mix and master (the plugins these days have a lot of AI built into them) and to be honest it saves me time rather than spending days fine tuning EQ settings, but never for creating the music! Having said that, sometimes when using an arpeggiator, I'll hit the random button to see what it does, (which is computer generated) does that count?
To be clear, I understand your point, and I agree, the only thing that will stop AI taking over the "arts" is if people don't buy it, don't watch it, don't listen to it. But as always I think there will always be a place for human art, there will always be those people who want their art to connect, but sadly IMO, a lot of people consume art, as it were, and not necessarily appreciate it.
The other side of this, is people like myself who use it a s a tool, I combine AI with my own art (photography)/film) and use it to promote my other art (music). Am I taking away from an artist by doing this, no, because I have always done my own and if AI didn't exist I would still be doing my own, it would just take longer and in all honesty require more effort. If I didn't use it what difference would it make? is that what we are saying here, that we shouldn't be using it? I am open to discussion about this, if someone can give me a good reason not to!
