LLMs don't impede human expression.
replyDamien Hirst, among many other prominent modern and historical artists, famously employed teams of human assistants to execute the bulk of the work. In the Hirst case that extended to the spot paintings, many of which he had very limited involvement in as a direct feature of the concept of the work itself.
replySomething tells me that doesn't alter the value of the art as expression of the intention of the artist, and not the assistant be it human or machine. In the spot painting case he was deliberately playing with this idea to the degree it added to the perceived value.
That's a great point! I wonder if the difference might be that, as you mentioned, Hirst's lack of direct involvement was part of his artistic message. I wonder "work where the medium is part of the message" might just be an exception to the rule? Although in general I am suspicious of whether AI art is really art, I would consider it art if using AI was part of the message. However, does that generalize to other messages that people use art to communicate?
replyHave you ever seen the end credits of a movie. It’s not made by one person either. Just like cathedrals aren’t built by one person.
replyBut someone has the vision and make it real. That which is real is a medium from one soul (or many) to you.
I still have to see someone using LLM to share a soulful vision of his.