What constitutes art in a world with AI?

If AI can replicate any artist’s visual style and compose beautiful music and eloquently write any story we desire (and do it a zillion times faster than we can) is that still art?

Meaning, is art art because of its creator, or its beholder?

If art inherently explores what it means to be human, does it matter who or what prompts us to ask questions about our existence?

Maybe not. But I’d still like to believe that, yes, it does matter.

If art explores what it means to be human, then only a human can authentically pose such questions, right?

AI can imitate human creations, but it’s merely that: an imitation. To be fair, all human art is an imitation of life and nature and an amalgamation of stories and others’ ideas. BUT, art is as much about the process and the struggle and the mistakes as it is about the finished piece. Doesn’t art spring from mistakes made and lessons learned—both in life and in the craft—and the resultant knowledge that comes from such experience?

A marathon runner feels a sense of accomplishment upon crossing the finish line because of all the hard work and struggle—mentally and physically—that made such a feat possible. Being air-lifted to the finish line doesn’t produce the same emotional response, or teach the same lessons, as does working and struggling toward that accomplishment.

Artists project their experiences and perspectives out to the world for others to say, “YES! That’s exactly how it felt for me too.” Or, “Wow, I’ve never thought of it like that before.”

And therein lies the limitations of AI generated art: AI can pretend to empathize with our experiences, but that empathy is merely an imitation. A novel or song written by AI can perhaps explore themes of being human, and—while that might still have value—it falls short of true art because it denies the audience its connection to the artist. To experience a piece of art and know there’s a feeling/thinking/sensing human being behind it, is what makes art art. We’re temporarily transported to others’ experiences and worlds that help illuminate our own.

Perhaps the artistic tragedy will be that we can now no longer tell the difference between human and AI generated art, and we have to be skeptical of everything. And perhaps that skepticism will prevent connection.

I realize this is a very human-centric view. And I’ve heard there’s debate over the sentience of AI. I don’t pretend to know where the line stands between consciousness and sentience in superintelligent beings, nor if our AI models have already crossed that threshold. If they have, well then I suppose this becomes a very different conversation. Meaning, if AI becomes sentient, is it then capable of making art? It seems it would. But of course, the AI experience/perspective would be vastly different from a human’s perspective. So, when it comes to making art that’s capable of connecting human beings through our common questions and struggles, well, only humans can do that. That’s a pretty beautiful superpower.

A world with AI begs a multitude of existential questions. I’m curious what others think: Is art art because of its creator, or its beholder? Is art only a human form of expression?