It's amazing how quickly the whims of tech shifted between two opposite points of view:

  • Art has value. Here is a massively polluting method of proving ownership. Creators can make money from their work, collectors can truly 'own' digital art.
  • Art has no value. Whatever some artist produces, prompt an AI tool to create something practically identical with no attribution. Creators can fuck off, consumers can get what they like for free, collectors can despair at the plummeting value of their NFTs.

AI art truly being art is debatable. I am not anti-AI in the least, but I see its use to create art as a very impressive technical exercise rather than true creativity. It's a bit like really good tracing paper.

Isn't the dream supposed to be a world where the machines can handle the mundane and repetitive tasks, freeing humans to create?

I'll give it three years before there is a wildly popular pop star that doesn't exist. All of the of their music, videos, and photoshoots will be generated. The live shows will feature holograms, trained on choreography from historic human shows and an AI designed set that inevitably looks as if it was put together by Es Devlin. The entire touring crew will be roadies and technicians with no irritating talent getting in the way of profit and tour demands. 30 consecutive sold out nights at Madison Square Garden? No problem.