Isabelle Levent

In particular, anthropomorphizing the AI system mitigates the responsibility to the artist, while bolstering the responsibility of the technologist. Critically, this suggests that the responsibility that will be allocated to individuals in the creation of AI art will be dependent on the choice of language and framing used to discuss it

New art-making technologies change art in consistent ways, and studying the past helps us understand how things will change in the future.

In the course of a year, the tech industry’s dreary post-social, post-crypto interregnum was rapidly supplanted — largely as the result of public-facing efforts by OpenAI, which is reportedly in talks with Microsoft about a potential $10 billion investment — by a story about inevitable technologies that are  so  transformative,  so  incomprehensibl

If I have an idea for a novel, but the computer writes most of it, is it still my story? This question will not be answered with numbers about how many words I or the computer wrote. It’s going to be answered culturally; it’s going to be a feeling we have about where authenticity or truth really lies.

If it was possible to deduce how much of an influence each individual image has on the final outcome (and the owner of each image was known and labelled, which I currently doubt happens), would it be simple to compensate people then?

Much of the discussion this year is about text-to-image, but I believe this is a temporary stage; these things are going to continue evolving very quickly.

Because creativity  by definition  involves not only novelty but value, and because values are highly variable, it follows that many arguments about creativity are rooted in disagreements about value.