Why A.I. Isn’t Going to Make Art - To create a novel or a painting, an artist makes choices that are fundamentally alien to artificial intelligence.

There's a Douglas Hofstadter book, Le Ton Beau de Marot, which is all about the art of translation. Specifically one poem by Marot, translated over and over again.

In the book, he convincingly makes the case that translation always has choices that must be made, and in translating a poem, choices must be made about which parts of the original must be held strictly to and which are open to interpretation. Rhyme, meter, structure, tone, etc.

It's a fascinating book, really.

So is the art the product or the intentional process? That's the core question here.

Because computers can and do translate, and there are choices made along the way.

Are those choices made? Are they made with intent?

And if they are, does that intent qualify as artistic?

It's a neat question and not easily discarded.

We had a similar issue a few years back. Who owns a macaque's photography? Are they the artist, or the person who gave them a camera?

Almost like it's a tool that humans can use

all this is under the assumption that ai will only remain as text to imagine generator and their whole argument is that artist makes a lot of choises and you can't add all that choises in a limited prompt length now what if the context length of future ai systems become big enough that someone who is not artist can also do all the choises? i mean artists are human they have limit on human capability they can only make some choises, but ai is math equation there is no limit, in current day we have context length limitations purely because of compute limitations and that's not a fundamental problem of ai.