The reason human painting will survive is very simple: because 1) people value human-made objects independent of those objects' objective qualities, and because 2) paintings exist outside the digital world, and there is no robot sufficiently dexterous to match the skill of a painter in applying paint to a canvas. That being said, as this technology matures, lots of currently employed digital artists will no longer be needed.
ok but that's not what these models are doing? they're mimicking training data, and sure it's really impressive how far that gets - but ask it to do something outside of that raining data or where the # of samples is low and it's "creativity" falls apart
I think these models exhibit a form of creativity, but not creativity in the vein of say - an art style not seen in the training data
There are very few artists who you can call “original”, the majority are riffing and remixing based on previous predecessors. Making find tweaks here and there.
This is something you can achieve with an AI model just by increasing randomness.
That's actually the most interesting cases. And I strongly disagree that it falls apart
'The Edge of the Universe'
https://www.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/wmu10p/the_edge...
Citation needed. We know how all ML starts with an RNG, since we built it. We don't know how human mind works.