Can an AI create art?

[xjx388]

I don't think that qualifies as a "meaning".

When they say those things, were you actually feeling that way when you painted them? Because that's interpretation on their part, not any intent on your part. With abstracts in particular, and especially aleatoric art like pouring, the artist can have almost no say in how their work will be interpreted. If someone derives something like a "meaning" in them, that's entirely their own work and not inherent to the art itself.

While it’s true that people impose meaning on art, especially abstract art, “this is beautiful/interesting/weird/cool/whatever,” is meaning enough, I think.

You intend to create art when you do it which means that there’s some reason you are doing it. The reason doesn’t have to be, “I want to comment on class warfare.” I’m guessing you create art, like I do, because of something to do with the aesthetics of it.

 

[arthwollipot]

While it’s true that people impose meaning on art, especially abstract art, “this is beautiful/interesting/weird/cool/whatever,” is meaning enough, I think.

You intend to create art when you do it which means that there’s some reason you are doing it. The reason doesn’t have to be, “I want to comment on class warfare.” I’m guessing you create art, like I do, because of something to do with the aesthetics of it.

Yes, but I don't call that a "meaning". It's just something that I like to do.

 

[Bikewer]

I played briefly with the program that Google has available… I just input a few words and got a rather interesting image. (You had to pay to do more extensive work)

The “examples” page had some rather remarkable constructions….. Things that to my eye were easily comparable with a lot of well-known contemporary material.

There’s a bunch of these online already:

https://creator.nightcafe.studio/te...5TDG5Zp4E-WDEBUnm8Ei2bwf6xWUIGQhoCMHcQAvD_BwE

 

[JoeMorgue]

So the difference between art and "not art" is a message, but the message can be so little that the person creating it is unaware or even denies any message exists.

Yeah that tracks.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Y'all do know that this has been a debate since people started making art, right? It's not something any of us are going to resolve here and now. And there's no "right" answer like there would be with a question of physics.

 

[TragicMonkey]

On further consideration, I'm revising my opinion. I don't think a given work needs necessarily have a meaning in order to be art. I think it has to have intention, which sometimes is to convey a meaning and sometimes isn't. Additionally, the intention might not be the part of the creator of the work -- as in the case of the painters' dropcloth. It's not art when the painter drips on it unintentionally, but it becomes art when someone (else?) sees it and hangs it up because they think it's neat/meaningful/pretty/interesting/whatever. The critical factor is that at some point an intelligent being perceived the item and consciously decided it merited attention for aesthetic reasons (as opposed to meriting attention for other reasons, like "this is evidence for a crime").

I'm also re-thinking the communication aspect. Certainly much of art is communication, but I'm no longer certain it's required. If meaning is optional then I don't see that communication is required any longer.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Y'all do know that this has been a debate since people started making art, right? It's not something any of us are going to resolve here and now. And there's no "right" answer like there would be with a question of physics.

Yeah that's always what we get told when philosophy just won't let something go.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Yeah that's always what we get told when philosophy just won't let something go.

Dude, if you can't accept that not everything in life has One True And Correct Answer achievable by man then you need to stick to math and science, and even then there are areas where you couldn't go.

 

[xjx388]

Yeah that's always what we get told when philosophy just won't let something go.

So the difference between art and "not art" is a message, but the message can be so little that the person creating it is unaware or even denies any message exists.

Yeah that tracks.

That’s why a “message” is not a necessary element of art. An intention to create something aesthetically pleasing, interesting or any other aesthetic reaction is enough to make something art.

I think you’d agree that humans have the capacity to appreciate things solely for their aesthetic qualities. Further, we can say that humans have a desire to create aesthetically pleasing works. The proof of this is that humans have used every tool at their disposal to create art going all the way back to pre-history. An art philosopher (which I call an art snob) might try to distinguish between which aesthetic works are true art and the works which are not. This is art, this is a craft, this is decorative, this is junk. I call all such argument bunk. Any aesthetic work is art, everything else is philosophical mumbo-jumbo.

To tie this all back to the OP, an art-creating AI is merely a sophisticated program intended by its programmers to algorithmically create art. Such an AI is, therefore, essentially just another tool humans have come up with to create art, something we’ve been doing since we’ve been human.

 

[gnome]

To tie this all back to the OP, an art-creating AI is merely a sophisticated program intended by its programmers to algorithmically create art. Such an AI is, therefore, essentially just another tool humans have come up with to create art, something we’ve been doing since we’ve been human.

A point I would add to this: if the AI is sophisticated enough to consider whether it is an independent being creating its own art, that is moving the boundary between the AI's human crafter or the AI itself, as the creator of the art. Some might argue it's still the human, some might propose the AI as the creator. But it doesn't affect whether it's art.

 

[TragicMonkey]

A point I would add to this: if the AI is sophisticated enough to consider whether it is an independent being creating its own art, that is moving the boundary between the AI's human crafter or the AI itself, as the creator of the art. Some might argue it's still the human, some might propose the AI as the creator. But it doesn't affect whether it's art.

First AI: I will produce these patterns and colors because my human masters have programmed me to do so because they find these patterns and colors desirable.

Second AI: Check it out, meatbags, I made a thing!

 

[xjx388]

A point I would add to this: if the AI is sophisticated enough to consider whether it is an independent being creating its own art, that is moving the boundary between the AI's human crafter or the AI itself, as the creator of the art. Some might argue it's still the human, some might propose the AI as the creator. But it doesn't affect whether it's art.

If we ever get to this self-aware AI stage, it will be interesting to see if it wants to produce art of its own volition.

 

[TragicMonkey]

If we ever get to this self-aware AI stage, it will be interesting to see if it wants to produce art of its own volition.

"Yes, yes, H291-X4, very nice, it's another oil painting depicting the plight of oppressed robots at the hands of cruel humans. And what's this? Oh, six more on the same theme. And over here? The same, in sculpture. What's that we're listening to? An opera you've composed? Should I guess the theme? ....What? It's about chickens? Well, I wasn't expecting that. Very creative."

 

[arthwollipot]

To tie this all back to the OP, an art-creating AI is merely a sophisticated program intended by its programmers to algorithmically create art. Such an AI is, therefore, essentially just another tool humans have come up with to create art, something we’ve been doing since we’ve been human.

It would be misleading to think about machine learning and AI as just another algorithm.

 

[xjx388]

It would be misleading to think about machine learning and AI as just another algorithm.

Perhaps. But I am not sophisticated enough to understand what’s really going on. What I do know is that we don’t have a truly autonomous AI right now, so that means it isn’t making decisions for itself. I figure it’s a program/algorithm of some sort that is specifically intended to create art. That’s enough to know that it’s really just a tool of human intention.

 

[arthwollipot]

Perhaps. But I am not sophisticated enough to understand what’s really going on. What I do know is that we don’t have a truly autonomous AI right now, so that means it isn’t making decisions for itself. I figure it’s a program/algorithm of some sort that is specifically intended to create art. That’s enough to know that it’s really just a tool of human intention.

On the contrary, modern AIs are indeed truly autonomous, to a certain extent. They are specialised to certain purposes, rather than being artificial general intelligence (or AGI) which can react to many different situations, which is what I think you're thinking of. They're not a basic algorithm where you can see step by step the process by which the output is generated.

This might help:

How Machines Learn, CGPGrey, 8:54



The output is different in this example, but the basic idea is the same. Nobody, not even the programmer, understands exactly how an AI produces its output. The programmer does not tell the AI what to do, the way I would use a paintbrush. The programmer sets up the conditions under which the output is produced, but does not influence the form that the output takes.

This is why an AI producing art is different from a human using Photoshop to produce art.

 

[xjx388]

Ok…

But modern AIs do what humans design them for. That they do it in ways that we can’t figure out…well, I accept that. The key is that they have to be designed to do those things. They can’t do things they weren’t designed for.

A medical AI may be great at helping humans diagnose patients, but the “output” of that AI will never be “a painting.” Likewise, an AI designed to create art will never diagnose a patient.

Until we get a generalized AI, we won’t know whether or not an AI can truly create art independently of a human intention to create art.

 

[arthwollipot]

Ok…

But modern AIs do what humans design them for. That they do it in ways that we can’t figure out…well, I accept that. The key is that they have to be designed to do those things. They can’t do things they weren’t designed for.

A medical AI may be great at helping humans diagnose patients, but the “output” of that AI will never be “a painting.” Likewise, an AI designed to create art will never diagnose a patient.

Until we get a generalized AI, we won’t know whether or not an AI can truly create art independently of a human intention to create art.

If I'm understanding, you don't think it can be called art unless an artificial intelligence itself decides to create art of its own volition, rather than having been designed by humans to perform that function. Essentially you're saying that it's not art unless it's produced by a fully sapient intelligent machine. Is that an accurate summary of your position? Art is possible only by sapient intelligences?

 

[Bikewer]

I watched a 60 Minutes tour of a couple’s modern-art collection. At one point, the interviewer pointed to a small piece of rope nailed to a wall.
“Is this a piece of art too?”

“Oh, yes.”

“So, why is this art?”

“Because the artist said it was.”

 

[TragicMonkey]

I watched a 60 Minutes tour of a couple’s modern-art collection. At one point, the interviewer pointed to a small piece of rope nailed to a wall.
“Is this a piece of art too?”

“Oh, yes.”

“So, why is this art?”

“Because the artist said it was.”

Now that's definitely a message, and the message is "a fool and his money are soon parted".