The closest I can come up with for defining art is "anything that is appreciated for, or created to be appreciated for, its aesthetic value". That second part to include art that someone created that theoretically nobody appreciated.
Which then kicks the can to defining "aesthetic", of course.
Y’all are complicating it too much. And forget about abstract art, let’s make it simple. The basics.
Is it pleasing to look at? There are certain compositions and colour palettes that are more pleasing to look at than others.
Creativity. This is a difficult one.
I just watched the video. That's art.
I conclude that an AI can generate art.
Now, can an AI know when it has generated art?
And, can the AI generate art without the human requesting it? So is it really AI generated art, or is it a human artist using the AI as a tool to generate art?
Meh....it's all philosophy and the worst kind of philosophy. The worst kind is when there's no right answer, because it all depends on definitions.
The most important thing to know is --- that program is totally cool.
You have to ask it.
It might not have a will of it’s own as such, but it clearly has considerable understanding and it seems to have more ‘creativity’ than many humans.
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.
It makes so many decisions!
If I ask you to draw a picture of “a sloth in a scuba diving mask exploring the wonders under the sea” how many decisions would you have to make? How many of those decisions do you have to get right to produce a pleasing arty picture?
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?
Art is not in the product but the intent?
So by the same argument, intelligence has nothing to do with the difficulty of the problems you are able to solve, but weather you decide to try to solve it?
That doesn’t make any sense.
Art is not in the product but the intent?
So by the same argument, intelligence has nothing to do with the difficulty of the problems you are able to solve, but weather you decide to try to solve it?
That doesn’t make any sense.
Is a beautiful waterfall art in and of itself? I argue it is not because it’s just a product of the random processes of nature. It takes a human to look at it, decide it’s beautiful and capture it in a pleasingly composed picture. That picture is art.
I think it’s far beyond the scope of this thread and my own personal knowledge level to decide what “intelligence” is. But whatever it is, I think it’s far beyond problem-solving ability. And intelligence in and of itself is not a sufficient “factor” to create art. I think humans are the only animal to have all the factors that go into creating an intent to create art: chiefly a capacity to appreciate aesthetics and express themselves aesthetically.
So if I find a random object I find "pretty" but I never find out if it was made with "intent" it's just never art nor not-art, just forever stuck in some Schrodeinger's Limbo of Maybe Art?
So if I find a random object I find "pretty" but I never find out if it was made with "intent" it's just never art nor not-art, just forever stuck in some Schrodeinger's Limbo of Maybe Art?
An interesting distinction... for "found art" of this kind, it's the highlighting of it that creates the intent that makes it an art presentation. That could work.
Seems y’all are mostly talking about the appreciation of art. The human brain is very flexible and can find beauty and meaning many things. Even random things as we all know.
Rather look at it from the creating art perspective. What do you appreciate in your favorite pieces of art?
Creativity? Skill?
Is the AI creative?
It seems both very skillful and creative to me.
Is a beautiful waterfall art in and of itself? I argue it is not because it’s just a product of the random processes of nature. It takes a human to look at it, decide it’s beautiful and capture it in a pleasingly composed picture. That picture is art.
I think it’s far beyond the scope of this thread and my own personal knowledge level to decide what “intelligence” is. But whatever it is, I think it’s far beyond problem-solving ability. And intelligence in and of itself is not a sufficient “factor” to create art. I think humans are the only animal to have all the factors that go into creating an intent to create art: chiefly a capacity to appreciate aesthetics and express themselves aesthetically.
I think intent is completely separate from intelligence. As are different types of intelligence.
The human brain is not a single neural network, but rather consists of a collection of specialized and integrated networks that are each intelligent in their respective areas.
Dalle consists of two separate AIs, one a natural language AI and the other, one that understands pictures. It was trained by looking at lots and lots of specifically labeled pictures. Photos and artwork.
The first is called GPT3 and it’s the actual brains behind the process. It reads and interprets the text and tells the other AI what it has to draw.
It was not programmed, but let loose on most of the internet to read everything. It read Wikipedia, all the major journals and news sites, books etc.
Here is a video of a chat bot called Leta, with GPT3 as its brain.
It is not connected to the internet. It’s responses are a result of everything it learned reading.
In this vid she is asked to answer some questions from the Stanford-Binet IQ test.
It’s gives very interesting answers to some questions.
Two Minute Papers on GPT-3.
It understands much, much more than just English.
It really is a very peculiar situation.
This AI read the internet. It contains a huge amount of knowledge but we don’t know exactly what or how exactly to access it.
You have to ask in just the right way to get what you want but who knows what the right way is.
This is also an interesting property of evolved neural networks. They don’t seem to like discussing artificial ones. This has been very noticeable over the last few years.
So if I find a random object I find "pretty" but I never find out if it was made with "intent" it's just never art nor not-art, just forever stuck in some Schrodeinger's Limbo of Maybe Art?
This is why I say the artist's intention or meaning or message is not what makes something art or not. I find that a reductionist way of defining art, for me art is in the beholder's eye/touch/hearing etc.
This is why I say the artist's intention or meaning or message is not what makes something art or not. I find that a reductionist way of defining art, for me art is in the beholder's eye/touch/hearing etc.
What a pretty rock formation! Compliments to the artist. God, I guess?
There's a big gap between "reductionist" and "leaving everything in existence open to being called art". Nice DNA spiral. Beautiful asteroid. Just look at them atoms. Art?
What a pretty rock formation! Compliments to the artist. God, I guess?
There's a big gap between "reductionist" and "leaving everything in existence open to being called art". Nice DNA spiral. Beautiful asteroid. Just look at them atoms. Art?
I mentioned "the artist" - I thought it would have been clear that I was referring to something created not simply a result of natural forces. (And lets not go down the rabbit hole of ah but humans are simply natural forces).
I mentioned "the artist" - I thought it would have been clear that I was referring to something created not simply a result of natural forces. (And lets not go down the rabbit hole of ah but humans are simply natural forces).
So an artist is required, but not intention or meaning from that artist. Does the artist have to participate in any action at all, or just be there? If the artist has to commit an action to produce art, does the action have to be conscious? Is something the artist does in his sleep art? If unintentional actions while unconscious aren't art, then why would unintentional actions while conscious be art?
What I'm driving at is that the artist has to be sentient being deliberately intending to do something in order for the end product to be art. Intention's got to be in the mix or else every snore is music and every fart an act of theater. I don't see getting away from that, no matter what the beholder thinks of the item or event.
I think I agree with TM, just with the provision that intent doesn’t have to be with the creator; just somewhere in the process. I’d think AI stuff counts because the AI creators added the intent in designing it. Likewise differentiates between a waterfall (no intent, not art) and a picture of a waterfall (intent added by the photographer).
Even ‘found’ art could be covered by this. A photograph taken as part of a documentation effort, say, (maybe particle traces from a collider) may later be presented as art by someone else; they add the intent to it.
Seems a workable idea to me.
Sent from my volcanic island lair using carrier pigeon.
I think I agree with TM, just with the provision that intent doesn’t have to be with the creator; just somewhere in the process. I’d think AI stuff counts because the AI creators added the intent in designing it. Likewise differentiates between a waterfall (no intent, not art) and a picture of a waterfall (intent added by the photographer).
Even ‘found’ art could be covered by this. A photograph taken as part of a documentation effort, say, (maybe particle traces from a collider) may later be presented as art by someone else; they add the intent to it.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
