Plenty of musicians have created music using randomised generators since forever. Using AI doesn't have to make the art less meaningful, it depends on what you do with said output.
Plenty of "low effort" art gets valued at arguably ridiculous prices, purely due to the name of the artist. Is suspending buckets of paint on a pendulum to let physics do the work worth more than providing an AI with a prompt?
In the end, the value of a piece of work is in the eye of the beholder.
It is the same stupid arguments from 50 years ago that the electric guitar is just noise.
These people that are so offended by AI art and music I suspect are the type of people who would NEVER go to an art gallery anyway. They don't even know what you are referring to with buckets of paint.
AI Art is just a topic to be pissed off about and generate sentences about online to them.
Yes, but the English Language isn't sold back to me at a premium. Also, it wasn't developed by a private company, its evolved over time through the effort of many generations of people.
Human learning is not the same thing as building a for-profit computer model. And making this comparison is part of my problem with the industry.
Plenty of "low effort" art gets valued at arguably ridiculous prices, purely due to the name of the artist. Is suspending buckets of paint on a pendulum to let physics do the work worth more than providing an AI with a prompt?
In the end, the value of a piece of work is in the eye of the beholder.