Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jfutral

Artistic-y or actual art? AI creates, or so some say

Recommended Posts

I like how Christie's frames this discussion in their headline, 

https://www.christies.com/features/A-collaboration-between-two-artists-one-human-one-a-machine-9332-1.aspx

that AI is a medium, not the actual artist.

But, of course, this is not how the AI world sees this, nor other AI creative endeavors such as in these articles:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/these-abstract-portraits-were-painted-by-an-artificial-intelligence-program-180947590/

https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.07068

https://futurism.com/a-new-ai-can-write-music-as-well-as-a-human-composer/

http://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/benjamin.pdf

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2139184-artificially-intelligent-painters-invent-new-styles-of-art/

https://sputniknews.com/science/201711211059311031-artificial-intelligence-spots-forged-paintings/

As I've regularly written, if there is ever an AI that burns out and commits suicide at 27, that's when I'll believe AI is creative.

https://natureofthebeat.svbtle.com/ai-commits-suicide-at-27-years-old-news-at-11

Some of the arguments I have made about humanity and art vs algorithms does make me reflect on how different we are from AI. I like to think artists have a passion that an AI cannot replicate. But as many artists have said about this drive, how can they do anything else? Isn't that the same thing, though as the AI, how can it do anything else? If art is part of our human nature as created by a Creator, is this not the same or similar thing as an AI?

I did read an article that I think posed the right question (I can't find that link) can an AI that is not directed to create choose to create?

I think this also poses other questions. If art if quantifiable, that there truly are objective standards that are discernible and objective, what is left but to push out the humanity in art? Even GO, which assumes a required human intuitive, creative nature has been conquered by AI. GO still is built on a set of rules and a definable outcome that can be programmed. Is art the same? This is where I usually diverge from those who think art has to be objective and require a set of standards. If that is true, why do we need humans? What do humans bring to art that cannot be replicated by an AI?

https://natureofthebeat.svbtle.com/for-the-humanity-in-art

I'm really not posting my blog articles to drive traffic, just as starting points for conversation. There is a lot to love about Svbtle.com, but they do not have a commenting system where a conversation can occur. Besides, I think I posed the questions here so it doesn't really require going out to my blog.

Just some thoughts in hopes to generate a conversation.

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2019 at 9:57 AM, jfutral said:

I think this also poses other questions. If art if quantifiable, that there truly are objective standards that are discernible and objective, what is left but to push out the humanity in art? Even GO, which assumes a required human intuitive, creative nature has been conquered by AI. GO still is built on a set of rules and a definable outcome that can be programmed. Is art the same? This is where I usually diverge from those who think art has to be objective and require a set of standards. If that is true, why do we need humans? What do humans bring to art that cannot be replicated by an AI?

Although, didn't the master win one of the games of "GO" against the AI? 

This paragraph made me think of chaos theory. I read a book that claimed that chaos theory was not the belief that things were random but rather that they were so complex as to not be predictable. Thus what we can "intuitive" may be a label for an instinctive understanding of some rule or principle that has not yet been articulated or understood. Perhaps, just as the computer is helping the humans better understand chess and Go (question assumptions about what rules are true and what is a good/bad move, so to might computer generated art help us to better understand or articulate the principles feeding our creative judgments.

Then again, that metaphor seems tricky to me (as are all metaphors), since I seem to recall one point about the Go documentary is that the AI was programmed to prefer moves that would increase its win probability even if doing so reduced its immediate advantage or lessened its margin of victory. That may be easier to program since Go and chess have not just specific rules but specific, concrete win conditions. Art..not so much. Consequently, I can only imagine a parameter would be to imitate certain conditions or styles or characters if "winning" paintings, which can change or be more complex than we can identify. (Cue critic from documentary saying "It doesn't sing like a Pollock.")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, kenmorefield said:

Then again, that metaphor seems tricky to me (as are all metaphors), since I seem to recall one point about the Go documentary is that the AI was programmed to prefer moves that would increase its win probability even if doing so reduced its immediate advantage or lessened its margin of victory. That may be easier to program since Go and chess have not just specific rules but specific, concrete win conditions. Art..not so much. Consequently, I can only imagine a parameter would be to imitate certain conditions or styles or characters if "winning" paintings, which can change or be more complex than we can identify. (Cue critic from documentary saying "It doesn't sing like a Pollock.")

Which is why I do think, in terms of "art as a consumable", or popular art, AI may well out do or even replace human creativity. There is a clear outcome expected—to sell as much as possible to as many people as possible. Computers are not concerned about selling their soul to "the man".

Will that economy free up the human artists? If the marketers and producers are looking for money, will they stop looking for humans to abuse and take advantage of? Will they stop asking humans to create for free "for the exposure"? Or will exposure become even more elusive?

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jfutral said:

Which is why I do think, in terms of "art as a consumable", or popular art, AI may well out do or even replace human creativity. There is a clear outcome expected—to sell as much as possible to as many people as possible. Computers are not concerned about selling their soul to "the man".

Yeah, I mean I've already seen classes to help you paint "like" Thomas Kinkade or write a screenplay that follows the required three act formula. It doesn't seem to be a stretch to me to say that the once the humans adopt a formula, it doesn't need a human to execute it.. (I've already heard of computer algorithms that can grade papers more consistently and accurately than human evaluators--i.e. that will more consistently spit out the consensus number on a scale than will an expert human reader.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...