>http://ostagram.ru/ So what do we do now that AI can art

File: artisdead.png (586KB, 607x439px) Image search: [Google]

586KB, 607x439px

>>2419797

>>2419797
Entertainment, achievement, personal satisfaction, etc.


A guy on a bike would demolish any marathon, a guy in a car would beat everyone in the tour de france.

>>2419797
>digital trash

>>2419799
this

>So what do we do now that AI can art better than us?

Mostly randomness. Computers are notoriously bad at randomizing. Also, they don't possess consciousness, so they can't make art on their own, they need a person to put in two art works

>>2419806
do you actually believe randomness exists in our material universe?

>>2419807

As of now, we don't know, nor can anyone. That's the problem with unknown unknowns, you lack the knowledge that you lack a certain piece of knowledge

>>2419811
that's why I said 'believe' dumb idiot

>>2419813

define material universe. atm randomness exists in quantum mechanics. outside of that, no.

>>2419797
>Requires the work of others in order to create new image

When it can create original images all on its own then I'll be worried.

>>2419939
Everything is derivative, even what you consider original.

File: 1453415242937.jpg (383KB, 1280x1488px)

383KB, 1280x1488px

>>2419946
There's a difference between something being derivative and something being literally a photo + artsy filter.

What noobs like you don't seem to understand is that commercial art is about design and story telling, much moreso than it is about painting pretty pictures. That's just a side effect of technical skill.

Granted, if you are one of those faggots who made their entire career out of copying photos of pretty girls, then yes, you should be worried about AI programs being able to do a better job at it than you.