From an end-user's point of view, though, that's actually really great.
I love Star Trek The Next Generation. They're never making any more than those seven glorious seasons. If I could subscribe to a streaming service that offered an infinite number of AI-produce believably-authentic episodes featuring the original characters, and plot that could plausibly have been real episodes, I'd subscribe in a heartbeat. I'd just watch that and skip the rest of what passes for TV today.
I'd love for that subscription money to go to the original cast and crew as royalties, instead of buying the president of Paramount a seventh house. But I don't have a choice about that.
Pink Floyd [maybe!], Yes, Rush, they're never making any more music. Would I pay for an AI-based infinite album maker? You bet!
> Would I pay for an AI-based infinite album maker? You bet!
it sounds like you don't even like art
what exactly do you feel when you listen to music? what makes you want to listen to music? what drew you to rush and pink floyd in the first place? i ask because my subjective answers to those questions are diametrically opposed to some theoretical generative AI album maker
I would pay good money for an AI generator of Children of Bodom music featuring Alexei, or an AI rendition of his style. It's the only way I'd be able to hear new things of his very specific style now that he is dead.
Should I like art only if they're made by humans? If I did a blind test between AI and humans and I like the AI, does that make me suddenly not like "art?" Face it, I (along with most people) like the outputs of art, not the inputs. We simply don't care whether a human or a computer or a dog made it, as long as the output is good. If you want to define "art" as only a human thing, go ahead, but I will still watch and listen to what I like, regardless of its creator, and if that's not true "art," then I don't really care.
Then you don't like art, you like the product of art, the form or topography of art, the presentation of it, but not art itself. You like to consume a product.
Some people do actually like the art, the process, the artist, the questions that art open (even if mundane such as "how did they think of this?"). Remove that and it's just a shell, a hollow product without soul. It's ok if you like that but then you don't actually like art.
If we're getting into the definition of art I feel like it's a hard sell that an actual episode of TV, with plot and actors and everything, isn't art because no creative impulse went into it, yet a plain orange canvas is art that's worth $80 million [1] just because a human touched it.
You’re conflating economic value with artistic value. The worth of a painting is a highly speculative number based on a few rich people deciding they want to trade in art. Artistic value is independent from it. Art may resonate with you, yet be economically worth nothing.
This reminds me of how when Rush retired, they started then selling all sorts of re-hashed or knick knacks that aren't really new music or tours. It just feels like a cash grab now.
It'll be the same with these generated media. Consuming art is fundamentally an experience of humanity, of connection. The more generated it is, the more it loses its purpose.
I love Star Trek The Next Generation. They're never making any more than those seven glorious seasons. If I could subscribe to a streaming service that offered an infinite number of AI-produce believably-authentic episodes featuring the original characters, and plot that could plausibly have been real episodes, I'd subscribe in a heartbeat. I'd just watch that and skip the rest of what passes for TV today.
I'd love for that subscription money to go to the original cast and crew as royalties, instead of buying the president of Paramount a seventh house. But I don't have a choice about that.
Pink Floyd [maybe!], Yes, Rush, they're never making any more music. Would I pay for an AI-based infinite album maker? You bet!