[Malte Müller]

On the one hand it’s true that A.I. just “absorbs” anything if can, on the other hand, that’s actually what artists do as well, absorb all kinds of novels, symphonies, pictures, etc. that have been done, and then creating producing something new. So it’s really not as simple as it looks.

Yes, that is a favorite argument of “AI fans”. But this isn’t true at all. AI absorbs at a scale that is by no means comparable what any artist does. An artist gets inspired by his favorite artists and at best results in its own style because it is both pointless and hard to “do the same”. AI is not creative. At least not yet.

AI should solve or help with tasks that are boring or cumbersome, in short are no fun to do. We don’t really need AI for creative work, for things that actually are fun to do (no, creative work is also not always fun of course).

However, the problem is clearly that it will be increasingly difficult to rely on visual and audio-visual media as “evidence” for anything… since anything can be faked.

As with any technique there are those who use for the worse.