> it wasn't obvious to me until I started thinking about AI art, but so much of the value I get from a piece of media is knowing that another human made it I

> it wasn't obvious to me until I started thinking about AI art, but so much of the value I get from a piece of media is knowing that another human made it I feel the same way. Increasingly, it seems we're making it possible for AI to create art (movies, novels, paintings, music) and eventually be involved in everything related to art: reviewing said art, commenting about it online, maybe even having heated discussions about it. But art is about human connection. It's not something we want to automate. The article tangentially mentions something about art becoming accessible to non-artists, i.e. people who wouldn't be able to "create" otherwise (what the author calls the "illusion", or "faking it"). But maybe art isn't supposed to be "democratic" in this sense; maybe those who cannot directly create in their preferred art form should instead enjoy it, or discuss it -- or better, practice more and get good at it the hard way?