Literally nothing but facts. A preschooler messing around with crayons has more potential for creating emotionally complex and legitimately moving art than any AI could ever hope to achieve, solely bc it doesn’t have a mind out of which to draw any semblance of emotion or passion, it can only faintly imitate the passion of actual people.
I’d highly recommend Drew Gooden’s latest video on AI and how fundamentally bad it is at attempting to create anything resembling emotionally resonant art. Definitely a powerful watch that summed up my thoughts perfectly.
Do you think AI can generate IGOR by Tyler, The Creator? By The Time I Get to Phoenix by Injury Reserve? Everywhere At The End Of Time by The Caretaker? Everything Everywhere All At Once? Into/Across The Spider-Verse? Love, Death & Robots? Utopia? A Picasso painting? A Zdzisław Beksiński painting? Can it write Animal Farm by George Orwell? Watership Down by Richard Adams? I don’t think it can. Art is made by humans to connect with other humans, to make us feel, think, and more. Human art understands humans. AI art only understands what it is fed. It can generate a generic picture but yet can’t generate a hand properly, one of the earliest pieces of art ever made were handprints and a computer can’t understand it enough to generate it right. I think that says a lot about the difference between human and AI art. AI and tech bros don’t understand this about art, they never will and even if they did or do they don’t care, they see art merely as a product, a commodity with no other value than the price tag slapped on it. “How much can we charge a subscription to access this art for?” is the only thought that crosses the minds of people who champion this kind of soulless, emotionless “art”.