hmmm

Okay, yeah I totally agree that text translation and data interpretation is a more obviously acceptable use of AI. Definitely when it comes to art it gets muddier. I hate a lot of the ways AI art is used, treated, and understood, for what it's worth.

I do think, though, that while art is valuable as an expression of the artist's emotions, it's also fair to say that part of art's value is the impression it makes on the viewer. If I see an artwork of a beautiful scene, it's maybe less about this being an expression of the artist, and maybe more about how the scene makes me feel a certain nice way. In fact I think many artists actually strive to "remove themselves" from their work, they actively don't want their work to be a reflection of their own emotions, but instead they want it to produce a certain effect in the viewer.

Is Romeo and Juliet valuable because it tells us how Shakespeare thinks and feels? Or is it valuable because it makes us think and feel things? Of course there's a mixture there, but I think it's mostly the second one.

If a bunch of rocks tumbled off a mountain and struck a xylophone and coincidentally played Pachelbel's Canon, don't I still hear beautiful music?

So yes, I agree that while AI art is weaker in the dimension of enjoying thinking about the artist's intent or the reflection of the artist's mind, I think it can still fulfill the other great calling of art. And for course, it does reflect the prompter to some extent - albeit of course a much lesser one. But we also have human artists create aleatoric music and artworks (often specifically to efface themselves from the process), and we call this beautiful and creative, too - but arguably this is no different than leaving elements of the composition up to the chance of the generation's random seed.

Thanks for taking the time to express your reasoning without being pointlessly sassy with me. It really sucks that just because I'm trying to express a sliver of devil's advocacy here, I get people dogpiling on me and imagining me to be something I'm not. Frustrating and disappointing. Anyways I really appreciate your comment in light of all that.

I am an artist myself, I spend a ton of time making art and thinking about how to make more successful art, analyzing art, philosophizing about art, etc. Please believe me when I say that I understand the approach you describe as a value of art and a way of valuing art. I definitely think that one of the great joys of art is in thinking about the human reasoning behind it. I have cried tears of joy from doing theoretical analysis of baroque music, because I felt as if the composer was alive again by my side, so much did I understand the thought process behind the composition.

That said, I don't think the approach you describe is the only way to value art, and I think we do art a great disservice to treat that as the only way. I believe in "the death of the author" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author), and I believe that a work can have an intrinsic meaning that is possibly entirely different from the author's intent. The essence of a work is the work itself. For example, imagine if you learned that The Bee Movie was intended to be a heart-wrenching metaphor for drug addiction. Would you now think that this is indeed what the movie is about? Or would you think "the movie is what it is, it means what its always meant, and the creator just failed to create what they intended"?

It can be fun to connect with the artist and look for meaning in their work through the lens of the artist, but the work has an intrinsic meaning in itself. Let me ask you this one question:

You've likely heard of the famous "shortest story" that goes like this: "For sale: Baby shoes, never worn." Let us suppose that the author of this story had never written it. Instead, I've created a machine that randomly selects 6 words and punctuation written on pieces of paper from a jar, and lays them out to form gimmicky short 6-word stories. Most of these stories are gibberish nonsense, but eventually the machine just so happens to lay out exactly the text of that baby shoes story. In this case, does the story somehow no longer have meaning to you? To me, it seems as though the story must have the same meaning. The entire content of the work is the same. And to me this demonstrates that it is the work itself which gives the work meaning, not the intent of its creator.

No, you can't argue against my reasoning, but just keep repeating your magic word if it helps you feel better lil buddy. Slop slop slop slop slop! Maybe if I say it enough everything I don't want to face will disappear!