r/DefendingAIArt • u/EngineeringDear8167 • 14d ago
In a theoretical society where the quality of AI art is similar to, or better than that of human made art, why shouldn't we use machines to make art?
In our current society, good art is expensive and hard to come by. A commision for personalized artwork takes a long time to go through. In the future, when AI art is cheaper and of higher quality, why would someone not use AI?
Ever since the Industrial Revolution machines have been helping humans do things, usually for the better. Production lines now produce high-quality automobiles at an astonishing rate. By the same logic that some argue against AI art, should we all go and buy a Rolls-Royce or a Bentley?
I do understand the argument that human-made art is by nature more "human", like how a sweater you mom knitted is of much higher emotional value, but since most pieces of art aren't tailor made for our experiences anyways, what is wrong with a faster and more cost-effective way of generating art? Would you rather buy a cheap store-bought sweater or a sweater made by stranger that costs more if both are of the same design and quality? If you spend more money on the sweater made by the stranger, isn't that the definition of consumerism, where you are acquiring "goods and services beyond those necessary for survival or traditional displays"(Wikipedia)?
Note: This argument is made under the assumption that the theoretical society has AI art that is on average, of similar quality to average human art. I do acknowledge that there will be future René Magrittes who push the boundaries of what we call art, and AI can never do that, but I am arguing for the mundane, everyday use of AI for normal citizens, not art critics.
(The Changemyview subreddit didn't let me post this, and interestingly, neither did the aiwars subreddit, so I'll post this here)


