This is not really a debate on whether AI generated art is art. Rather, I want to drive home the point that intention is indispensable for art creation. Because without intention we have only output. While it might be true that AI opens up new creative possibilities, this leaves open the question of whether those possibilities hold the same artistic value if intentionality is diminished.

There's an interesting conversation happening right now in tech, and it’s a general questioning of existing approaches to leadership style (...) Particularly, the 'Founder Mode' defended by Airbnb’s CEO Brian Chesky and NVIDIA's Jensen Huang's particular leadership style have caught the public's attention (...) why is this discussion happening right now?

We can say that for Pollock, denial of the accident was a way to assert his authority over his medium. So art could not be left to fate or randomness. Every splatter, splash and drip was a deliberate act. In contrast to Pollock’s view, AI-generated art is inherently tied to the concept of accident.

My theory here, if I dare call it a theory, is that there’s no place for metaphysics in digital technology. We're dealing with physical things: bytes, bits, electrons, energy, signals, hardware, and software. The language of technology doesn’t seem to have a vocabulary that invites metaphysical elements. Technology inhabits a pragmatic, utilitarian, and self-sufficient land.