From one of Sam's latest podcasts - do you think AI can be creative in a meaningful way? Does discovering that a piece of art or music you liked was AI-generated change your entire appraisal of it?
Sam recently had this conversation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLy8yYPVH-M
The gist of what his guest says is that she feels AI-generated conent becomes hollow once she learns they were machine made, because to her, part of the value of art comes from knowing a human mind produced it.
Sam is more open to the possibility of emotional exploration sparked by non-human intelligence.
I'm curious what people's takes are on this.
There was a little "experiment" done by a Twitter user (https://x.com/SHL0MS/status/2054280631807316329) where they uploaded a picture saying it was an AI-generated pic in the art style of Claude Monet, an 18th century painter. Commenters were sure that they saw lots of AI tells in the picture, pointing out how the picture couldn't be more plainly soulless, only to find out in the end that the painting was an actual Monet art piece.
To me this speaks to the idea that art is in the eye of the beholder.
The reflexive negative response a lot of people tend to have around generative AI-derived art does seem to at least come from a place of human hubris and insecurity. People had this imagined notion that while computers could execute on logic, creativity would always remain a human domain, and then suddenly got the rug pulled out from under them.