> AI art isn't as good as human art. But in a few years it will probably be better. This is a very big "probably". About as big as the "in a few years, AI driv

> AI art isn't as good as human art. But in a few years it will probably be better. This is a very big "probably". About as big as the "in a few years, AI drivers will probably be better than human drivers" line from 2015. Regardless: an AI can definitively be better than a human at something like Go (a closed game with a clear win condition) or driving (a logistical task with no creativity). But how do you define "better" when it comes to art? From a technical perspective, AI is already better than the vast majority of human artists! Very few artists would be able to, say, draw images of nature to create something that has the same contours as a popular meme[0]. So, arguably, we're already at the point where AI-generated art is "better" than human art. The question is, does that matter? Or does it matter in the same way that it matters that a motorcycle is faster than Usain Bolt? [0] https://i.imgur.com/jsI0HZH.png https://i.imgur.com/jsI0HZH.png