Making art with AI?
You wrote: “It’s not about AI itself being evil. It’s about ourselves, about people, being enabled to do evil things using AI.”
And I agree completely. It's not AI that is evil, it is us sucking evilness from a universal deposit...and looking forward to transmit this evilness in the AI tools.
So, by making art with AI, it is always us being enabled to do art? I guess, it is a Yes and No, depends by how you trained the AI.
If we train AI to make art like Van Gogh, and we claim that we own that AI, are we making art? Or Are we just copying art? Or Are we making digital art?
And if in order to differentiate the art AI tools, someone trains its AI with different Known and Unknown young artists without their permission, what will then happen?
In the book Perfume: the story of a murderer, Jean-Baptiste Grenouille is one of 18th-century France's finest perfumers. He becomes obsessed with capturing an elusive aroma: the scent of young womanhood....So he ends up killing a lot of them.
Imagine an Art AI so powerful, that obscures young artists talent, leaving them without future in art industry...
I guess that's why people are afraid of AI. Rich people having access to all of these tools and poor people not.
So while creativity, is considered our asset going forward, also human creativity and making art will have to evolve and "update" in order for people to survive in the art industry.
And going forward, the real artists will be the ones that are digital artists with all the risks that come with it.
I agree with your vision here. making art with AI does have more implications.
consider the optimization of ecommerce data - we could use AI to "make art" that optimizes based on sales, fashion trend data, etc, and makes merchandises out of that. that is when the "mcdonalization" of art truly takes hold, and it will compel us to ask the new question, on what is art.
what is art.
I really don't know what is art. Half or more of what is labelled as art might actually be pseudo-art right now.
What I love about this topic (and Vlad's article) is that it offers a completely new realm for the AI debate to unfold itself within. Sure, sentient intelligence can pass the Turing test and prove itself indiscernible from human intelligence, but art remains one of humanity's claim to fame. Art is the true expression of human creativity - tangible evidence of the imagination that led us out of caves and forests.
I never fully appreciated art in this way but it's something that's wholly dependent on its audience to give it meaning. And such is the same with A.I... A.I. can be evil if we program it so. Art can be considered beautiful if we deem it so. Some universal truths can be established - that A.I. is very intelligent or that a lot of work went into a particular piece of art - but some finer points (morality, beauty) rely on external interpretation from others..
Neat to see how A.I. and art are one and the same in this light.
Thanks for the great discussion!
that a lot of work went into a particular piece of art - but some finer points (morality, beauty) rely on external interpretation from others..
If art was an experiment and the artist couldn’t see the green colour (he/she is a mutant), he/she more likely paint a different world than the one we others see. Some they will call him/her crazy, some they will adore him/her.
But guess what? Plants (chlorophyll) absorb blue and red light while allowing green light to be reflected. So the plants they just appear to us green but in reality they might not be green….
So, I guess a good artist is a good mutant, always from my point of view of morality and beauty.