I wish that was true, but the number of artists that made a controvery over losing an art contest to a robot proves this incorrect.
Though, maybe you could tell me how such ugly art won against all the good art?
Discussion
bc contests arenβt the sole source of knowing whatβs good art.
itβs all bad.
Tell me, what is the sole source of knowing good art?
that a real human created it.
Im going to ignore that standard because it gave us this trash:
#m=image%2Fjpeg&dim=1920x1080&blurhash=iRRCb*og%3FwWBD%24oet7bJoz%25LoKRkNKjrxWozR-V%40%25NWWIUt6x%5DRkM%7Bs.s%3AWCWDofxWR*NLs.s%2BWBtSoJV%3FR-WYs.t7R*Rj&x=6d89c758df0f606cd2b56b286146a0b429e2b3d44c49a1779390a8ede0c496ae
Have you ever wondered how junk food won against all the good food? (To the point of side effects becoming the leading causes of death.)
Ag subsidies made them cheaper to both produce and purchase than good food, and they were engineered and focus-grouped to produce cheap one-note flavor hits to our reward centers at the expense of the full richness and variety of good food.
The analogy is pretty good. AI will always be much cheaper than paying an artist, and itβs default trained to make the most generally appealing stuff it can based on its input of human art (though you can tweak its style, etc.)
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It clearly wouldnβt win a contest judged by nostr:npub1csamkk8zu67zl9z4wkp90a462v53q775aqn5q6xzjdkxnkvcpd7srtz4x9 π€·π»ββοΈ