Report Blog Entry
smart talking initiated!!!
So, my opinion on AI, specifically AI "art" is quite specific. If an AI which has been trained specifically only to make images, and can't think for itself, that can't talk or convey anything other than making images, nothing it makes can be considered art by any measure.
However, if an AI that can think like a human & has no guidelines to what it can think (basically just an AI that can make any thought it wants, and can do anything if it learns how to do something, like a human) makes art, I think that it would be considered art.
Let's say that there's two AI's.
AI-A is an image generation AI, like DALL-E. It has one purpose, to generate images based on a prompt. It can't think, solve problems or choose what to make an image about. It can only create something that a human told it to make (unless a chatbot generates the prompt).
AI-B is a thinking AI. AI-B is shelled inside of a robot with the ability to pick up a pencil, think with it's own intelligence, without human instruction at all, and create a unique piece of art, based on simply real photos and what it thinks about based on those photos.
If AI-A generates an image, that image is in no way art. The prompt was human generated (usually), the AI can't think about what it just generated, and can't describe the process of how it created it. As such, the image would not be art.
However, if AI-B draws something, that image would be art. I think that because of the following reasons:
- AI-B chose to draw a picture, on it's on accord.
- AI-B picked up a pencil and drew the image.
- AI-B can think of things it might've wanted to draw and used reasoning to choose the best thing they could try to draw.
Basically, if an AI can think and decide it wants to draw a specific thing that it thought of without human intervention, then the picture it creates is, by definition, art.
I don't support AI art being passed off as real art, nor how image generation AI's like DALL-E use real artists work to reference & affect the type of art the AI will create. If an AI can decide to make art, then it's art. Not if it was generated by a prompt inputted by something else.
Comments
Displaying 1 of 1 comments ( View all | Add Comment )
Cabin_Fever
Well, it depends just how deep the training of AI-B goes -- and whether you would consider it an AI, or essentially human at that point. To simulate organic creativity would require a full reconstruction of the human mind (on a level of understanding we do not have yet,) as true creativity is influenced by countless factors. A truely creative artificial intelligence would have to experience a life of its own. A truely creative artificial intelligence would have to believe in its own sentience. A truely creative artificial intelligence would have a personality, the simulated neurons and chemicals of a human, nearly indistinguishable from an actual person. And at that point, where it has reached sentience through the same process as us, assuming it doesn't recieve manual training through datasets that are fed directly into it -- its works could be considered original. It's in the same sense that as artists, we often learn from the works of others. But that complex processing is not the same as the machine learning depicted in AI-A. A generative program is built for just that: generating things based solely off the data it posesses. It is technology that mimics intelligence. But AI-B is intelligence that simulates intelligence. And when it is on that level, although it was "manufactured," it can hardly be considered artificial intelligence in the same way. It is simulated intelligence.
Exactly. I didn't think about the training data of AI-B when writing the original post, but that's also a key role in whether it could be considered art or not.
by sealo; ; Report