I liked this article (although I found the scrolling effects distracting)

> If you want somebody else to care about a thing, you have to care about it, too.

This has always been the crux of it for me, you're right to focus on intent and human to human communication.

Does this imply that we must redefine our ground rules for what constitutes art? Yes, I think it does. The exact same image, one hand-drawn, and one generated, could be art on the one hand, and merely an arrangement of colour on the other. Even if a person interprets meaning from the generated image, I still might argue that it does not qualify as art. I have interpreted meaning from hallucinated shadows on my wall, clearly not art.

This makes it rather impossible to declare something art merely based on the artifact. Art may become a concept that is only stable within a tight-knit community of trust.

I've been talking to friends (engineers, artists) about the use of AI to make art, and I wrote up a reflection on those conversations that might be helpful to the current debate taking place. I definitely think this is an interesting moment where engineering and art are moving closer and closer together. Ways of making art can increasingly be engineered. And engineering can increasingly be expressive. One of my engineering friends recommended I post this here so I'm gonna give it a go. We'd love to know what people think.

Fascinating read and I have to say the site design is beautiful