I appreciate the detailed response. I want you to know the point I was trying to convey aligns with yours. They are clearly incomparable, of course, I was strictly struggling with wording since the terminology we were used to now commonly refers to other things.

Edit: also, I make music, and I'm inspired by human artists expressing their experiences, we're on the same page

Do not read too much into meme quickly made a couple months ago. This topic does interest me however and I'm happy to discuss it further, but know I'm not sure someone that needs to be convinced of the merits of human creativity

[–] artwork@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I see. Thank you, and I appreciate the clarification in response!
The dear terminology, languages, and misunderstandings... Isn't that why art exists in the first place, indeed...
To support the creativity mentioned:

Obviously, there's no creativity in AI, and especially in art.

AI makes no art, and there's nothing to search for in it, also considering the amount of different people works and effort meatground into digital limited/sampled quantized data. It's noise.

There's no place for a machine in it, otherwise it becomes limited, lacking, and lifeless.
Art exists for people, us the humans to communicate with each other through time and narrow channels as general languages.

Source (AI struggles with true creativity compared to humans, study finds...)

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

It's noise.

Perfectly and succinctly put