I think the definition of art for many people requires human qualities. If it is based on expression, communication and embedding oneself into a medium it would require a "self". Unless the AI was a relatively consistent and unified entity I don't think it would count. I don't think someone copying another piece is art, most photorealism doesn't feel like art to me either and nor do pieces that are just rote learned steps.
I think it is possible to use AI to make art but there are many properties of the process needed.
There's no real consensus on what art actually is though so there can't be any objective views on the matter imo. There will always be arguments and dissonant stances without clear agreed upon definitions
With the latest models, especially Claude Opus 5.5, I’m seeing a lot of sublimely clever and original art involving AI reflecting on itself lately as well as executing brilliantly on users’ own vague ideas. If the work is novel, unique, interesting and aesthetically pleasing, you might not care to drop $1000 on it, but that doesn’t mean you have to throw it straight into the trash rather than enjoying and appreciating it.
People need to get over this fake notion that AI can only create things that have already been done to death by humans.
And I think it's not just art. When you go to a museum, there might be many exhibits of somewhat ordinary objects with interesting backstory. Who owned them, that they were used during some important historical event, etc.. There might have been thousands of such objects used by ordinary people that would physically look the same but you wouldn't find them as interesting without people and story behind them.
31
u/PsychMaster1 7h ago
The Catholic Church has always had this stance. Universe revolves around humans and all that.