i disagree with the premise: i'm pretty sure we have dozens of art shitposts and cia nonsense made by people where they remove the influence of such choices to make some point that's entirely lost on me because the "art" doesn't represent, convey, or look like anything.
a generative model is trivially not an artist, but there's no reason actual (as opposed to marketing scam) artificial intelligence, if that ever exists, couldn't produce art.
or you could read the article and find that it agrees with you (at least on second point). On the first point, if you mean modern art, eh its still represents some arcane choices for author or some point they try to make
i disagree with the premise: i'm pretty sure we have dozens of art shitposts and cia nonsense made by people where they remove the influence of such choices to make some point that's entirely lost on me because the "art" doesn't represent, convey, or look like anything.
a generative model is trivially not an artist, but there's no reason actual (as opposed to marketing scam) artificial intelligence, if that ever exists, couldn't produce art.
or you could read the article and find that it agrees with you
(at least on second point). On the first point, if you mean modern art, eh its still represents some arcane choices for author or some point they try to make