

Yeah fair enough, I don’t disagree with you. I think for AI artists of the future it’ll be more about them asserting their subjectivity through the lens of each model (if that’s possible). Sort of in the same way that each camera has a character to it that is palpable across multiple people.
For example, take Adolf Hitler. He was a terrible artist. He had no understanding of proportion. His paintings don’t make logical sense. And you know what? That suits the man. Hitler was an idiot who couldn’t make logical sense of the world. His paintings reflect his terrible mind. There is that much value in them as an endeavour of self-expression. I can look at a painting by Hitler and say “that’s a Hitler”.
But I do disagree with this, though. Hitler may have been a terrible artist but he might be an equivalent artist in skill level to any number of other humans who might or might not have a “logical sense of the world”, “no understanding of proportion” etc. I don’t think Hitler’s art is good enough to even be able to tell anything about him other than that he doesn’t have an original voice yet.
I don’t think most (any?) AI artists have an original voice yet. Can they make one, even though the instrument makes most of (much of?) the music? I’m not bearish on the idea that humans can use this tool to make something useful I guess.
Sure but it gets back to “Nobody wants to see anyone’s shit art”. No one wants to see anyone’s shit photos either. If it didn’t take like 5 minutes for a photo I bet most early photos would have been of tits, too. It doesn’t mean the tech can’t have a purpose and couldn’t be used in a flourishing, artistic way. It just means we need to do what we’ve always done and tell people with bad art to fuck off. :)