AI can make art that feels human. Whose fault is that?

economictimes.indiatimes.com:

artificial intelligence went from a dreamy projection to an ambient menace and perpetual sales pitch. Does it feel like the future to you, or has AI already taken on the staleness and scamminess of the now-worthless non-fungible token?

Artists have been deploying AI technologies for a while, after all: Ed Atkins, Martine Syms, Ian Cheng and Agnieszka Kurant have made use of neural networks and large language models for years, and orchestras were playing AI-produced Bach variations back in the 1990s. I suppose there was something nifty the first time I tried ChatGPT — a slightly more sophisticated grandchild of Eliza, the '60s therapist chatbot — though I've barely used it since then; the hallucinatory falsehoods of ChatGPT make it worthless for journalists, and even its tone seems an insult to my humanity. (I asked: «Who was the better painter, Manet or Degas?» Response: «It is not appropriate to compare artists in terms of 'better' or 'worse,' as art is a highly subjective field.»)

Elevate Your Tech Prowess with High-Value Skill Courses

Still, the explosive growth of text-to-image generators such as Midjourney, Stable Diffusion and Dall-E (the last is named after the corniest artist of the 20th century; that should have been a clue) provoked anxieties that AI was coming for culture — that certain capabilities once understood as uniquely human now faced computational rivals. Is this really the case?

Without specific prompting, these AI images