I’ve had quite a few discussions about art and AI. I’ve even written about it in one of my recent novels. The question most people have an issue with is that AI will take all the information it has been fed (both legally and illegally) to create ‘new art’ that might eventually put creatives out of work.
For me, this is unlikely to happen.
No matter how much information AI has been fed, if it is only putting it into a limited mixing pot and spitting it back out as something ‘new’, it will always be, at best, a wanna-be version of something old. A homogenised render of what has come before.
For me, the crucial distinction is that art isn’t really created by an artist. The best and most innovative artists aren’t brilliant at creating, they’re brilliant conduits. I like to think all creativity, be it paintings, music, filmmaking, writing, etc. is a mix of learnt artistry, coupled with that undefinable ability to connect to the infinite creative mire that is pure inspiration.
I believe true innovators are drawing down from something far greater than themselves (than any self, in fact) and, by using their internal filters, they lay the inspiration out onto their canvas, film, books, etc. for the world to see. It’s the reason I feel my first book and film, Marcello Marcello, was written through me, not from me.
It’s my belief that no AI will be able to connect into that infinite ‘soup’ of creativity, so will always be just a concoction of what has come before. The only question is, can we, as humans, retain our sensitivity enough to see and feel the difference? Only time will tell.