People, many of us, pay for human made art. Paul Graham is an investor and believer in art. He also believes ai has value.
Don’t be fooled. It’s a false dichotomy. Make better art. If you can’t be better than ai, you don’t “get” what art is in essence.
Competition with art that is "generated" by ML is nothing more than an obfuscated way of competing with other artists whose works were used as a training dataset.
There is no artificial system today that actually creates art. All we have are systems that copy art in an intentionally vague fashion.
The patronage system has brought much beauty to the world. It’s imperfect and one wishes you could remove the rich men from the art world, but tradition speaks of truths which you’d be wise to listen to.
I think that first sentence invalidates the second. "Better than AI" implies the artist's work should be more commercially successful than an AI's.
Which of these two enterprises are more likely to have a sales team?