> I'm doing no such thing. By invalidating the Monet piece if it is described as AI-generated, art becomes entirely about the creation story. So that moves the bar to telling a convincing story.

No. Art isn’t about the “origin story,” but about what it makes you feel. In part, what it makes you feel is due to the fact that it was made by a human, with human emotion and intent, to communicate an idea to the world. AI has no such emotional backing.

> And LLMs can absolutely do that at the level of those museum placards next to each painting. So if you add an actor to pose as the artist, the art is the performance now.

Museum placards are not what make art interesting.

> But I no longer believe people care about empathy. The US wouldn't have elected a grifting performance artist president twice if they valued empathy.

Irrelevant; two things can be true at once. Also, not everyone has empathy, and not everyone likes art.

That’s why most people don’t have art on their walls, but random prints from IKEA.

> We're much more hindbrain-driven than I suspect you think we are.

Many people are! But “people who like art” is a relatively small subset of people, and I maintain that nearly everyone who likes art likes it because it makes them feel something.

Otherwise, there would be no difference between a Picasso and a print from EBay.

People who like art don’t buy NFTs. They buy art made by humans.