Computers Do Not Make Art, People Do

From the article:<p>&quot;I do not believe any software system in our current understanding could be called an &quot;artist.&quot; Art is a social activity, and our &quot;AI&quot; software is still just software, mechanically following the instructions we give it.&quot;<p>Well yes... art is a cultural outcome, and culture comes from humans. Thereafter from the time and place in which humans live.<p>What makes computer art interesting is its properties as a medium. For the most part, it is rather good at impersonating other mediums. The same beige box can be a video editor, a painting app, a piano etc. This makes it unique in the world of mediums. In my opinion, if it can be anything, then it is also kinda nothing (medium-wise).<p>The author mentions the impact that Photography had on art. This cannot be over-stated. Essentially, artists were put out of a job, or at least obliged to re-define their job description. For me, it is amazing the impact that computers had on photography. Photographers are now the ones that are re-defining their jobs.

Someone can reasonably be called an artist if, having listened to thousands of hours of music and training to replicate it, can create a new piece using a request from a patron — “make me a song that reminds me of my youth in Saxony” or whatever.<p>What’s the difference between that and a GAN transforming the request?<p>It sounds like worrying if submarines swim.<p>Not that I believe computers have quite reached the level that an expert artist does — being able to suggest modifications to a request — but saying they don’t produce “art” also seems incorrect.