[librexpr]

You'll note that "photography" as an art has its own name and is considered a different art than painting or drawing. And if you took a photo and then said "I drew this", people would say you were lying.

So personally I have no problem with considering GPT stuff "art", but I think it should be considered a separate art form and given a different name.

[pmoriarty]

Why oes it matter if we call it "art" or not?

AI creations are going to be enjoyed or not, used or not, given attention or not, just like human creations, regardless of what we call them.

More and more I'm leaning towards seeing the whole category of "art" as nothing more than gatekeeping.

[librexpr]

I explicitly said that I don't mind calling it "art". I meant that things like "AI songwriting" should be given a different name than "songwriting" like "photography" has a different name than "painting", even though all of these things are considered "art". The name could be just "AI songwriting", or it could be some fancier name (like "photography" has a fancy name).

Giving it a different name would also imply that you shouldn't submit AI songs to a songwriting competition, much like you wouldn't submit a photograph to a painting competition, but you could have separate competitions for AI songs, and separate competitions that accept anything, and so on.

[krapp]

>So personally I have no problem with considering GPT stuff "art", but I think it should be considered a separate art form and given a different name.

That name already exists - generative art.