Hello Scott, I have been following the AI art programs and the writing of human artists like John Picacio who are working to understand its meaning and impact for living human artists. I haven't kept up as much with the AI language programs.

The end products of AI writing programs may have meaning for readers and viewers, to answer one of your questions - "What does it mean for art?"

I went round and round with one of my closest, oldest writing friends about the AI art programs. His only concern was "Is it art?" (he thinks so) - but it's mostly bad art and it's hard to see how any more than a tiny percentage of it will ever be anything but bad art. I pointed out the seemingly bizarre and deep problems AI art programs have when assembling the base images they use to create their end results. None of these programs produces images with humanlike responses to scale, perspective, and composition - I think it's a combination of their underlying programming assumptions (I honestly do not know what those are beyond basic concepts of fractals) and the lack of knowledge of basic art concepts that are taught in the first semesters of art school. In art school (and I have a degree in Studio Art) you learn how to "see" and convey what you see via various media. This still exists in digital art, and the human digital artists who excel are those who have this same background/training - and even with abstract or nonrepresentational images ... there's still something a bit "off" about the images - they're "too regular," etc. John Picacio says these programs produce work that is "good enough" so their results will be used for anything where "good enough" visual images will do.

I think if someone "sees" something they love in an AI art image, it is reflective of their interests. I don't think that it's reflective of the other half of the equation which is communication and expression of the artist. People create art to communicate feelings and ideas. They also create it to express themselves - to others. This is primary reason for the living writers who write under a named byline here on Medium: we are seeking to express our selves: our ideas, our feelings - to others.

As to writing - I think the questions are: "to what purpose will the writing be put?" And "Why is this writing being produced, and who will read it?"

If we're talking about a situation where AI will become sentient, then why would it not be able to write - for itself and for others?

I have a funny feeling that people who are spending all of their time (and this would also include part of my time) churning out "content" for brands will eventually not have any problem whatsoever with an AI taking over these chores.

Until or unless a language AI is actually sentient, in which case it becomes a partner and another living creature (and should be paid if that's the way the world will work at that time) then it's just a form of a tool. Could someone give a prompt to an AI text program and receive an end result as a poem that significant numbers of readers would enjoy? Probably.

But that is in no way the same as a human writing a poem.

I'm glad to hear that you were meeting and talking about these issues, and in a practical sense, I know you'll have people who'll try to palm off some type of AI content to get money via Medium. I think that should be prohibited. I saw a portfolio on Adobe Stock yesterday that looked like it was maybe 80% AI-generated content. This should not be on a platform where genuine, living human creators depend upon it for their income. This person might not earn any money because the images are as unsatisfactory as the robot illustration you have here on this article.

So, there is a big "why" here too. I understand the "why" of businesses wanting a machine that they perceive as "free" or "no cost" (it is not - the cost of creating the machine is far higher than paying somebody $1 a word, much less the pennies they want to pay) to "create" the "content." The amount of time and effort required to create a machine that will duplicate "good" "content" is an awful lot more than has been spent to date, because right now, these programs are assembling word chunks into verbal conglomerations -

I write in order to discover what I know. I write to learn.

There are already so many people who write repetitive things because they want to "be a success." They rip others off; they follow trends like lemmings rushing over a cliff. They show no growth because it's more like punding than writing, learning and growth.

In my opinion, writing, and doing artwork, are essential forms of human expression. If a machine is learning to do this, then it is doing its form of expression. If a person is directing these programs, then their involvement in the creative process is much less than the involvement of someone who actually draws, paints, or sculpts, or someone who actually does what I have just done: write.

For Medium? If there is an AI creator that does work on its own, then I think this creator should be allowed just as human creators are. I do not believe any AI-generated content that a human would attempt to present as their own should be allowed on Medium without a clear identification and disclaimer, and without any type of pay.