This incarnation of neural networks will never be artists true, but some future iteration of combinations of algorithms (some of which will be informed by curre

This incarnation of neural networks will never be artists true, but some future iteration of combinations of algorithms (some of which will be informed by current neural networks) likely will produce many great artists per turn. That said, when people express skepticism about current AI produced art, what they are really trying to express is that current AI lacks a theory of mind in its productions. Artists are not simply sampling from a generative model, they're generating a construction informed by complex inner states while also predicting how arrangements of states will affect a perceiver. Great artists, especially writers and poets, are able to operate at above average levels of intentionality. Until we have AI with basic commonsense, the good news is—for an undefined period of time—AI will foreseeably be tools which augment artists (humans) and raise the floor for what counts as creative work. Even within a couple years, things by talented teams that would impress today will be run of the mill thanks to intelligent tools but one can hardly imagine what talent of the future enabled by semi-autonomous tools will create. This help could hardly be more timely thanks to rising production costs, falling profits and new content intensive modalities as VR. If you're interested in theory of mind, this is a good recent read: [The Complexity of Jokes Is Limited by Cognitive Constraints on Mentalizing](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4864470/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4864470/)