It's an interesting idea, and it's fun to see the idea of ​​an AI agent explored in the relatively benign realm of artistic expression.

That said, Botto still poses some ethical conundrums. Many artists working rightly concerned about the AI ​​impact has in his profession, as models trained on millions of copyrighted works are used to generate endless knock-offs on demand.

Maybe Botto is something completely different. Klingmann is a first adopter of AI in artusing neural networks as part of the artistic process, and as a kind of performance schtick. His previous creations include a video installation continuously evolving AI-generated pictures and a robot dog that poo reviews of visual art works.

And while Botto generates high-priced images using a model based on public works, Klingermann does not see this as plagiarism. "Image models and LLMs are the new search engines," he says. "For me, creativity is a kind of finding something that already exists in the space of possibility, and deciding that this is interesting, while making sure that it looks (like) it doesn't belong to anyone."

The images rendered by Botto look aesthetically pleasing to me, but they also feel – to my untrained eye, at least – like fairly generic AI image generator offerings.

While Botto's project raises many interesting questions about what constitutes artistic agency, for now I think it only emphasizes the importance of human intelligence and inventiveness. The spark of creativity does not belong to the machine that churns out an infinite variety of images with feedback from the crowd, but to the artists who came up with the idea in the first place.

What do you think of Botto and his works of art? Is it a worthwhile artistic idea or just another way to make money from generative AI and meme coins? Send a message to hello@wired.com or leave a comment below to let me know.