The spectrum of meaningfulness - by Kasra - Bits of Wonder

This post is my response to Ted Chiang’s recent essay in which he argued that AI isn’t going to make art. My thesis is in two parts: (1) I agree with the core thrust of Chiang’s argument that AI-generated art lacks “meaning” relative to human-created art, at least for the time being; (2) I also think that as a practical matter, generative AI already is and will continue to be a useful tool for humans to create art, and trying to insist on not calling such creations “art” is a losing battle. Let’s start with a basic premise: deflationary theories of “art” are no good. Some people claim that art is just “whatever anyone says is art.” To me this claim belongs in the same family of pseudo-insights as “truth is just whatever anyone feels like is the truth.” Yes, there is some subjectivity in both truth and art, but to deflate it entirely to “whatever anyone says”, and to claim that there is nothing more to say on the matter, is dishonest. If “art” and “not-art” were entirely made up and arb

This post is my response to Ted Chiang’s recent essay in which he argued that AI isn’t going to make art. My thesis is in two parts: (1) I agree with the core thrust of Chiang’s argument that AI-generated art lacks “meaning” relative to human-created art, at least for the time being; (2) I also think that as a practical matter, generative AI already is and will continue to be a useful tool for humans to create art, and trying to insist on not calling such creations “art” is a losing battle. Let’s start with a basic premise: deflationary theories of “art” are no good. Some people claim that art