I have a lot of problems with this thread.

First of all, I do not think that NIPS has a lot to do with creativity, let alone with art. It apparently has nothing to do with Culture more broadly, given the rumors about the parties and the on-stage sexual harassment jokes.

Secondly, can you imagine what it means to have Google officially brand the above work as “art”? It means that we will soon Google (or NIPS) Art galleries, Google Search prioritizing this as a search result over the actual paintings that it features, and teams of Silicon Valley college graduates going by herds to work for the “Google Art” teams, in noble efforts to pick things up where Picasso left them when he died.

One could say that this can be framed as “creative misuse of algorithms”. I think that the intentions behind the author are good and moral and everything - however, given the power and hype being piled behind the name “AI” and “deep net”, there needs to be more responsability and thought before labeling ANYTHING - but particularly before labeling it “art”.

How do we build a healthy dialogue of critique with the tech giants, when at any time they can decide that they want to redefine everything, even Art and Culture - and do so behind closed doors?