Sorry Ted Chiang, humans aren't original either

The discussion surrounding Ted Chiang's essay "Why A.I. Isn’t Going to Make Art" has sparked significant debate about originality in both human and AI-generated art. Erik Hoel critiques Chiang's argument, suggesting that it is not particularly original itself, as it echoes sentiments found in various prior discussions about AI art. Hoel posits that human creativity often relies on remixing existing ideas, similar to how AI operates. He argues that if originality is the benchmark, then much of human cultural production would also be deemed unoriginal. Hoel emphasizes that the essence of art involves choices made by the artist, but questions whether these choices require a level of originality that AI cannot achieve. He concludes that while AI may produce impressive outputs, it lacks the intentionality and consciousness that characterize human art. Despite the rise of AI, Hoel believes that human artists will continue to hold sway over cultural narratives due to their unique control over distribution and audience engagement. He suggests that the debate over AI's role in art may be less significant than it appears, as both human and AI outputs often reflect a shared cultural heritage.

- Ted Chiang's essay on AI art has generated extensive discussion but may not be as original as it seems.

- Human creativity often involves remixing existing ideas, similar to AI's processes.

- The distinction between human and AI art lies in intentionality and consciousness.

- Human artists are likely to maintain control over cultural narratives despite advancements in AI.

- The debate over AI's role in art may be less critical than the ongoing nature of cultural production itself.