[NickM]

I disagree that the current generation of AI has "solved" artistic fields any more than it's solved math or programming.

Just as an LLM may be good at spitting out code that looks plausible but fails to work, diffusion models are good at spitting out art that looks shiny but is lacking in any real creativity or artistic expression.

[77pt77]

> "looks shiny but is lacking in any real creativity or artistic expression."

My experience with that is that artistic milieus now sometimes even explicitly admit that the difference is who created the art.

"Human that suffered and created something" => high quality art

"The exact same thing but by a machine" => soulless claptrap

It's not about the end result.

A lot could be written about this but it's completely socially unacceptable.

Whether an analogous thing will happen with beautiful mathematical proofs or physical theories remains to be seen. I for one am curious, but as far as art is concerned, in my view it's done.

[NickM]

Truly great art, the kind that expands the field of artistry and makes people think, requires creativity; if you make something that's just a rehashing of existing art, that's not truly creative, it's boring and derivative.

This has nothing to do with whether a human or AI created the art, and I don't think it's controversial to say that AI-generated art is derivative; the models are literally trained to mimic existing artwork.