Hello.

Discussing whether or not what constitutes as "a human" should evolve past what we know it to be underwhelms me. Of course it should evolve. And I will defend whatever we become too, whenever that happens. My focus and time are finite, from here forward I'm specifically talking about AI in entertainment.

Even if a simulated consciousness were able to decide what would be valuable, scarce, or moral from a human perspective, we will have no way to prove it and no reason to assume it can or can't as long as it makes money. But humans are the ones who decide what makes money.

Humans with a stake in the outcome of a project will ultimately place preferential value on services from an agent that can be invested in the outcome over an agent that can only seem to be invested. I'M gonna prefer that too, you'd have to be dysfunctionally indifferent and incurious to be perfectly satisfied opening gifts from *no one. Even the most pointedly antagonistic creative work is still some guy communicating at you, hostile though it may be, it is contact.

Anyway, to assume a work is AI art is a brutal indictment of the ineptitude expected of the artist, while conversely, to be proud of making AI art is to be proud of nothing, call me when these things can make a decision without a human telling them to.

vic.rabonza@gmail.com