My summary of the debate at the National Museum in Gdansk.

There were a lot of threads about how AI will badly affect artists’ work or whether AI will lead to the demise of art. There was even a voice saying that personifying AI in conversation is harmful and brings the discussion to a lower level. Of course, there were also military and educational themes, but let’s stick to art.

➡ Art is governed by slightly different – literally – laws than other areas of life, I mean, let’s say, conceptual art or ready-made art; although an idea is not copyrighted, I have not heard of copying Ai Weiwei or Duchamp;
➡ Artificial intelligence can even enhance the arts, be a bridge between people who have huge amounts of creativity, a sense of aesthetics, and a lot to say through art but, e.g., don’t have the talent to create it;
➡ Artificial intelligence is already enhancing art in many ways; by way of example let me mention a project that uses artificial intelligence to make the weather the art curator (the program selects works from a museum’s collection by combining image metadata with meteorological observations);
➡ Just as the digital camera or Photoshop has not destroyed art photography, I see no reason for AI to do so; artificial intelligence can threaten many other professions, but not artists;
➡ AI can help collect royalties or other consideration;
➡ The recipient of art is still a human being; if AI helps build aesthetic awareness, replaces boring art lessons and improves art education, increases artistic accessibility, etc., then I consider the goal of art achieved;
➡ And just as some like still life and others like Pollock, some will like art created with the help of AI or by AI, while others will be devotees of art that came out of flesh and blood.

In conclusion, I think AI will more likely enhance the potential of art and increase the pool of artists than it is a real threat. There is no ‘either-or’ approach (either AI or human) here, there is complementarity.