> For artists, the product is their output, the art itself. For professional artists who do it for the money, yes, that's true. For amateur artists, the produ

> For artists, the product is their output, the art itself. For professional artists who do it for the money, yes, that's true. For amateur artists, the product can be the process, the flow of creating art. Futhermore, I'd say a lot of art isn't about conveying an idea or whatever. You see something, you paint it, because you like it, give it your own spin. Maybe the end result is good, maybe not. Often enough, the art becomes "valuable", because others give it some new context. > Chess players are not replaced by ML systems, artists will be. Traditional artists working with real materials won't be. They might even get new interest, because digital art will be flodded with spam. Or a magazine does, what the art scene has been about forever: Hire artists because of their name or their background. The job "digital artist" was created roughly 20-30 years ago and now is transformed to something else or might become obsolete. Bummer for digital artists, but not sure if this will destroy "artists" in general.