True.

Sargent, An Artist in His Studio, 1904

Yale Daily News asks, "Could AI elevate human creativity?"

Buck thinks that AI is changing how artists imagine what can be made, but would not replace the entirety of the design process. 

Rather than “replacing” human creativity, Buck views AI as “displacing” it. The architect described AI as a form of “mediation,” similar to other technologies like a pencil or paint, and software like Photoshop and 3D modeling. AI serves as a filter which humans “look through” and “create through,” Buck explained, and is already a part of cameras, software for editing photos, Google search and a variety of other platforms that affect how humans see the world.

“It’s not that it is or will replace human creativity but that it will change how humans are creative and how art is produced,” Buck said. “[AI is] another way in which what we make is filtered through all the different technologies we use.”

Nisheeth Vishnoi, A. Bartlett Giamatti professor of computer science and co-founder of the Computation and Society Initiative, thinks that AI could add to the creativity of human artists, “perhaps indirectly.” 

“It is likely that AI will discover new types of art forms which are visually appealing,” Vishnoi said. “However, the popularity of art, the price of art and artistic styles is a very human-driven process. And I’m not sure how AI itself is going to enter and capture that.”

Persuasion says, "Never."

Experience: not just the source of art but its very substance—what it’s made from, what it refers to, what it is tested against. It might be possible to code for low-probability choices, I guess, but how would the computer know if the results are worth a damn? Art is good insofar as we recognize it as true, as corresponding to our experience of the world, both inner and outer. But for AIs, there is neither experience nor world. No sights or sounds, no joys or pains, and also no awareness—no idea whether what they make is true, and therefore whether it is good.