(quoting novelist Brandon Sanderson)

Maybe someday the language models will be able to write books better than I can. But here’s the thing: Using those models in such a way absolutely misses the point, because it looks at art only as a product. Why did I write [my first manuscript]?… It was for the satisfaction of having written a novel, feeling the accomplishment, and learning how to do it. I tell you right now, if you’ve never finished a project on this level, it’s one of the most sweet, beautiful, and transcendent moments. I was holding that manuscript, thinking to myself, ‘I did it. I did it.’”

Cal Newport writes:

I understand art to be an act of deep human communication, in which the artist uses a tangible medium, such as a page of prose or a painted canvas, to transmit a complex internal cognitive state from their brain to that of their audience. It’s telepathy. And it’s one of the most beautiful and human things we do.

What really struck me about Sanderson’s talk, however, was his conclusion. If art is deeply human, he argues, then it’s up to us to define it. “That’s the great thing about art – we define it, and we give it meaning,” he says. “The machines can spit out manuscript after manuscript after manuscript. They can pile them to the pillars of heaven itself. But all we have to do is say ‘no.’”

LINK to text.

Art is an act of deep human communication, in which the artist uses a tangible medium, writing, painting or making music, to transmit a complex internal cognitive state from their brain to that of their audience.

That is beautiful! It is indeed the most glorious thing, a gift to the artist themselves and to everyone else.