The author’s primary claim seems to be that AI art defaults to what most people prefer (‘accessible’, pleasing to the eye/ear, etc.), which he puts in the bad category even if created by a human. However, I did not notice whether he checked if AI can generate images/poems that aren't so accessible/aesthetically pleasing, by asking AI to do so? It seems like a huge part of his claims about AI generating art (that's similar to bad human art) assumes that accessible/aesthetically pleasing art is all AI can do, and it can’t do otherwise if instructed so.
Otherwise, I guess the argument would devolve to: AI defaults to generating art that humans prefer (‘bad’), but AI can also do far more as well (if asked) when generating images/poems? (Although OP article is from '24, so capabilities may have changed.)
Comments
The author’s primary claim seems to be that AI art defaults to what most people prefer (‘accessible’, pleasing to the eye/ear, etc.), which he puts in the bad category even if created by a human. However, I did not notice whether he checked if AI can generate images/poems that aren't so accessible/aesthetically pleasing, by asking AI to do so? It seems like a huge part of his claims about AI generating art (that's similar to bad human art) assumes that accessible/aesthetically pleasing art is all AI can do, and it can’t do otherwise if instructed so.
Otherwise, I guess the argument would devolve to: AI defaults to generating art that humans prefer (‘bad’), but AI can also do far more as well (if asked) when generating images/poems? (Although OP article is from '24, so capabilities may have changed.)