A lot of prolific artists historically have passed their own work off to apprentices (for hundreds of years), and there's probably not much different here.
This frees the lead artist up for more conceptual work. AI can potentially carry on this tradition, and at less of an expense.
The truth of many great artists is that they needed to produce a lot more work than they'd have liked to make a living for themselves.
And as I learn about such individuals taking credit for others work I have nothing but disgust for them. This statement also binds to STEM.
Ivan Pavlov's assistants realized the dogs were salivating. Ronald Hare figured out how to mass produce penicillin and saved thousands of lives but no Nobel recognition for her triumph were those that got the prize failed. [0]
I personal will never fund AI art / AI artist. There is no personality in such works, only slop. Profits help artist is not why the create the art they do and if so, they lack soul in their works.
I think you're being too idealistic in these stances, it's just not how it's ever worked.
> And as I learn about such individuals taking credit for others work I have nothing but disgust for them
Historically, this wasn’t considered "taking credit." Leonardo da Vinci’s studio for example, involved apprentices completing significant portions of works under him. Buyers were aware they were commissioning a studio work and not a pair of hands. Koons or Hirst do it today, and it's no secret... it's how prolific artists have operated for centuries, they just can't keep up with the demand for their work solo.
The real soloists, like Van Gogh for example, were mostly obscure while they were alive... didn't really have any patrons, and didn't produce enough work to live off of.
To call the destitute failures "true artists" and someone like da Vinci "soulless" is pointless, because we don't decide these things, history does.
> Ronald Hare figured out how to mass produce penicillin and saved thousands of lives but no Nobel recognition for her triumph were those that got the prize failed.
I don't think this is true? Hare found success from trying to replicate Fleming's results. Fleming, Florey and Chain were jointly awarded the Nobel for the original discovery.
> I personal will never fund AI art / AI artist. There is no personality in such works, only slop
There will come a point in the near future where you won't be able to tell the difference. I lived through the same argument with Photoshop in photography.
This frees the lead artist up for more conceptual work. AI can potentially carry on this tradition, and at less of an expense.
The truth of many great artists is that they needed to produce a lot more work than they'd have liked to make a living for themselves.