> I feel like art needs to be tied to people and stories and mythology This is it, "AI" (not AI) is not a person, it's still a human tool. I think framing is

> I feel like art needs to be tied to people and stories and mythology This is it, "AI" (not AI) is not a person, it's still a human tool. I think framing is a lot to blame for thinking these processes are intelligent and creative. They are statistical models, they lack any context to possibly be something considered a person. It would be reasonable to argue "what is a person" (and there's a good star trek episode for that) but ML is far too primitive to be anywhere close to that threshold. Not only primitive but lacking experience, intent, thought - if there is intent it's from the human wielding it. In the domain of art, these tools allow us to automate reconstitution of existing art created by billions of people over hundreds of years, which is where it becomes deceptive in combination with the misleading term "AI". The source the model is trained with is obviously brimming with creativity, even the input text and tuning by the human user is a creative source, but this is confused with the process being creative. It's an illusion, we cannot possibly know all of that art and see through the result... A thought I commonly have when looking at the results of stable diffusion is in seeing little excerpts and thinking "I wonder where that bit came from", even if it's a section of a face, I feel like i'm looking at franken art. If we get to a point where we have artificial "people" who have lives, experience, and can interact with us and create thoughtfully, then you might get that warm fuzzy feeling similar to the interactions depicted in start trek.