Yea, that’s a pretty good analogy. A singing dog is impressive but not able to replace human singers. From what I’ve seen so far, AI tools create technically impressive but generic and derivative works, and on their own, can’t do what a human artist does in terms of understanding the context of what they are requested to do.
It’s possible that doesn’t matter to most people, and the art world will have to realise that mass-produced schlock is all the public really wants. We’ll see.
There's also the possibility they'll get better, possibly much better than humans. Given how much they've improved recently, that's a very very big possibility.
This "art is just a job we need done" take comes right after a comment about how voice acting is a uniquely human thing that AIs will never be able to do, and I'm finding the disconnect interesting.
Well, if AI is worse at art than us now, it means that we currently have a quality metric, otherwise "worse" means nothing. For an AI to get better than humans, it means that the humans are now the group that's worse at art.
It’s possible that doesn’t matter to most people, and the art world will have to realise that mass-produced schlock is all the public really wants. We’ll see.