> I it's fair it's fair to claim that by definition, if AI can make it all by itself, then it's not good art, because if AI can make it all by itself, then it's

> I it's fair it's fair to claim that by definition, if AI can make it all by itself, then it's not good art, because if AI can make it all by itself, then it's already in the "been there, done that" pile. As a tool however, a good artist can use AI to make good art. A scenario that blurs the line between these two is where an AI is used to randomly generate 100, or 1000, or 100,000 images and an artist (editor?) chooses one for some artistic purpose. If the generation process is random enough, then the AI is bound to create something new by accident eventually, just like a room full of monkeys banging on typewriters will eventually write Hamlet. At the end of this process though, did the AI create art by itself through randomness, or is it just a special case of an artist using a tool and the act of choosing is what created the art?