I clarify my question:
How do you feel about the fact that art created by AI this year is not much different from art created by humans? I think those who have seen it themselves understand what I mean.
How do you feel about the fact that now and in the future, AI will do most of the creative work 80-90% instead of authors and humans, doing it at the highest level better than any human, and people will just train their AI models and create content with prompts?
Found in my PM for some reason because PMs are stupid but anyway:
How? Please explain mathematically.
I certainly don’t.
Mathematically? Well, I’ll try: AI can create art that will replace human art so quickly, thanks to the quality data collected and the huge influx of money. Not exactly convincing, patterns also play an important role: for example, most people draw this way, or most shadows in 2D are depicted this way, and over time, based on patterns and carefully selected data, the AI would learn to create content in the same way as humans, only without fatigue mode, which means that the quality will not drop even if the AI stops learning as if time had stopped. This is a simple explanation that I can give because I don’t want to waste time looking for and checking articles that support my opinion.
Art comes from humans in order to provoke a feeling.
Pictures from CPUs that do not need or want to share anything cannot be called art by definition.
Use another word, but stop that silly appropriation.