Again about AI vs art: how do you measure quality?

Varujan Pambuccian continues the discussion about AI vs. art. With a practical case study: a comparison between a simple AI generated picture, vs a complex (more) intentional design.

The interesting question is how do you measure quality and emotion in art. Sure, there is a difference between the two drawings, but it's almost impossible to say which one is better, or which evokes more emotion. At first glance, I was much more moved by the simpler one. Then I was surprised to find out that, in fact, the other one was more labor-intensive.

Of course, an army of artists is now vociferating against AI, claiming that it’s not art. But what is art? What counts as art? There is no definition or measure. No artist has the capacity or the right to define what art is and what it is not.

But this discussion is not new. This debate also existed around naive painting, and art created by children, or randomly created art, about Dadaism, or about colors randomly thrown on a canvas.

So I maintain the position that AI is a tool. It can be a simpler or a more complex tool. But it is a tool. Made by people, used by people, displayed and interpreted by people.