So much of the discussion about generative AI has had to do with art, whether visual or text. Art is a key part of our humanity; giving it over to a machine seems to deprive the art of its human element. But what is art?

Jim Grey wrote that “art is having something to say and successfully saying it.” He wrote that (paraphrased) art comes from intent, not luck. Making a great photograph by accident being creative, not artistic. But I don’t think they’re separate.

I’ve had conversations with people where I’ve essentially told them “I’m just making something for work” undervalues their creativity. Art for hire is still art.

Last summer, Ted Chiang had an article titled “Why A.I. Isn’t Going to Make Art” in The New Yorker. He wrote “Generative A.I. appeals to people who think they can express themselves in a medium without actually working in that medium.” I’ve resisted using ChatGPT and friends for many reasons, but one of those is because I am a writer. It’s part of who I am. It’s part of my family tradition.

I write prolifically not just to share my ideas, but my expression of those ideas. If I had ChattyG write my ideas, the result would be meaningless to me. Much of what I write is crap (this post included, perhaps), some is damn good. The choices and effort I put into writing make the work mine and help me hone my craft. Constraints force choices, which make the words mine. Nobody makes exactly the same choices I do.

So yeah, I think Jim is right: art is having something to say and saying it. I don’t know that it matters if I say it successfully or not, though. Not all art is good, but that doesn’t make it less art.