"AI art--" It's NOT art and it will NEVER be, go argue with the wall.

My friend, who’s super obsessed with technology and robotics, just had this long, heated argument with me over the topic of AI (quote-unquote, if I hadn’t stressed it enough!) “art”. I wasn’t sure if we were talking about the same AI, as it’s true that my friend is far more educated about this topic than I am. But the AI I know of is disgusting and disturbing— it steals without credit, the works of actual human beings with rights. My friend was, weirdly, blind to the massive ethical concerns that AI introduced. His reasoning was that we were responsible to all of our sloth and greed that has lead into using such a thing to make art, because we created it in the first place.

Then he went on saying something about how AI was created to speed up the process of making art, and to benefit the companies. Art is not meant to "sped up"; it's a journey that takes comittment and practice. It consists of both inspiration and orignal ideas, but it doesn't matter in the end because what you will have is a work that was once a process that could only be obtained through learning.

My friend said that this non-sentient . . . thing would soon develop and become better and far more advanced than the human race. I don’t care if this is true or not, I believe that AI does not go anywhere near the talents of a human. It would always continue to mimic the works of humans in it’s own emotionless, bleak way. 

Imagine, some years in the future, a gallery where all the works are soulless copies of one another—all of them having the same visible struggle of blatantly copying a certain art style that was already made long, long ago by a human artist! Understand how painful it must be for an artist to train for nearly their whole lives, only for their jobs to be taken by . . . a f*cking robot