> it will forever be ugly

It will, and even if it matches what today we'd say is beautiful, it will commoditize the output so the bar will rise and it will again be ugly.

Yeah, someone would have to devote years to train AI on these vast works where most words/phrases/sentences can have more than one explanation (most of the tomes many). Anyways AI can help in tasks, but when it comes to explaining human creativity in Arts, it will forever be ugly. 

Coinsreporter

I think it can explain it if you explicitly train it on:

And leave out a lot of the "generic" stuff that are built into popular LLMs today because they are faking AGI.

That "training" is really more like a software layer or database tuning, not magic. An LLM isn't an entity. It doesn't live. It isn't aware and especially not self-aware. That's all programming to make it appear like it is, but it's a cheap trick, just a little more expensive of a trick than the 

Sam Says ChatGPT Is on Track to Out-Talk Humanity

I think it can explain it if you explicitly train it on:

1. The works in question and the context of the works
2. A skill of explaining works

And leave out a lot of the "generic" stuff that are built into popular LLMs today because they are faking AGI.

That "training" is really more like a software layer or database tuning, not magic. An LLM isn't an entity. It doesn't live. It isn't aware and especially not self-aware. That's all programming to make it appear like it is, but it's a cheap trick, just a little more expensive of a trick than the [HAL9000 IRC bot](https://sourceforge.net/projects/hal9000/) had.