Can AI be used to produce art?

[koraks]

Round and round in circles.

 

[Sean]

@Alan Edward Klein I consider Claude the most human like ai I have ever conversed with. So much so it really blew my mind and felt beyond any sort of "chatbot" experience. It was the first time I actually felt that there was something else going on here. I would suggest having a long conversation with it and I'd love to know your thoughts after that. It should be free:

https://claude.ai/new

You could start with questioning its views on AI's ability to create art or think etc. I found the longer the conversation the more I could not believe it was not sentient.

 

[BMbikerider]

There is a big debate if AI can produce art. I have the feeling not because it cannot understand or experience the relation to time and as a result death too.

Recently I came across some photos by an artist named Noemia Prada. They looked beautiful, nice compositions and emotional but … something was wrong. They looked as if they were soulless. After reading the artist statement I realized they were all made with the use of AI

My ex wife (who was also a half decent photographer) said the same thing about digital, almost word for word.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Does this help reassure you?:
https://apnews.com/video/meet-the-r...ith-dementia-7df03b8c6b874095b20b5919194e22c2

And you neither have to walk it or need a pooper scooper. Brilliant.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

@Alan Edward Klein I consider Claude the most human like ai I have ever conversed with. So much so it really blew my mind and felt beyond any sort of "chatbot" experience. It was the first time I actually felt that there was something else going on here. I would suggest having a long conversation with it and I'd love to know your thoughts after that. It should be free:

https://claude.ai/new

You could start with questioning its views on AI's ability to create art or think etc. I found the longer the conversation the more I could not believe it was not sentient.

I tried it, and Claude answered, admitting what I said about him in previous posts. I highlighted it. He's not sentient. He's looking things up on the web and elsewhere and mimicking previously held human beliefs. It;s just a big data bank presented in pleasing human expressions and answers to knowledge already acquired. Nothing new. Nothing creative.

Here's our conversation:


Me: Do you think God exists?






Claude: I don't have personal beliefs about God's existence in the way humans do. As an AI, I don't have faith, spiritual experiences, or the kind of inner life where such beliefs typically reside.
That said, I find the question fascinating from a philosophical standpoint. The debate has produced remarkable arguments on multiple sides:
Theistic perspectives often point to arguments like the fine-tuning of physical constants, the existence of consciousness and morality, or classical arguments from causation and design. Many find meaning and explanatory power in the idea of God.
Atheistic perspectives might emphasize the lack of empirical evidence, the problem of evil and suffering, or naturalistic explanations for phenomena once attributed to the divine. They may see religious belief as a human cultural development rather than a response to divine reality.
Agnostic perspectives suggest the question may be unanswerable with our current tools of inquiry, or that certainty in either direction is premature.
Each position has thoughtful defenders and addresses genuine puzzles about existence, consciousness, morality, and meaning. The question touches on epistemology (how we know things), metaphysics (what exists), and deeply personal questions about purpose and value.
What draws you to think about this question? Are you exploring it from a philosophical angle, or is it more personal?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I tried it, and Claude answered, admitting what I said about him in previous posts. I highlighted it. He's not sentient. He's looking things up on the web and elsewhere and mimicking previously held human beliefs. It;s just a big data bank presented in pleasing human expressions and answers to knowledge already acquired. Nothing new. Nothing creative.

Here's our conversation:


Me: Do you think God exists?






Claude: I don't have personal beliefs about God's existence in the way humans do. As an AI, I don't have faith, spiritual experiences, or the kind of inner life where such beliefs typically reside.
That said, I find the question fascinating from a philosophical standpoint. The debate has produced remarkable arguments on multiple sides:
Theistic perspectives often point to arguments like the fine-tuning of physical constants, the existence of consciousness and morality, or classical arguments from causation and design. Many find meaning and explanatory power in the idea of God.
Atheistic perspectives might emphasize the lack of empirical evidence, the problem of evil and suffering, or naturalistic explanations for phenomena once attributed to the divine. They may see religious belief as a human cultural development rather than a response to divine reality.
Agnostic perspectives suggest the question may be unanswerable with our current tools of inquiry, or that certainty in either direction is premature.
Each position has thoughtful defenders and addresses genuine puzzles about existence, consciousness, morality, and meaning. The question touches on epistemology (how we know things), metaphysics (what exists), and deeply personal questions about purpose and value.
What draws you to think about this question? Are you exploring it from a philosophical angle, or is it more personal?

Here's my next question. Also confirming most of what I said: Just a big data base from past human knowledge. Nothing new or creative.

Me: Where did you get this information from?
10:07 AM





Claude: Good question! I should clarify - I wasn't drawing from search results or external sources just now. This comes from my training data, which includes a wide range of philosophical, theological, and academic texts that I was exposed to before my knowledge cutoff (end of January 2025).
The perspectives I outlined are well-established positions in philosophy of religion that have been discussed for centuries:

• Theistic arguments like fine-tuning, cosmological arguments, and moral arguments are classical positions you'd find in works by philosophers like William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, or Thomas Aquinas (historically)
• Atheistic arguments about lack of evidence and the problem of evil come from thinkers like Bertrand Russell, J.L. Mackie, or more recently folks like Graham Oppy
• Agnostic positions have been articulated by philosophers like Thomas Huxley (who coined the term) and others who emphasize epistemic humility

I was synthesizing these into a brief overview rather than quoting or citing specific sources. If you'd like me to search for more current discussions, specific arguments, or particular philosophical works on this topic, I'm happy to do that. Or if you want to explore any of these perspectives more deeply, I can elaborate on the arguments themselves.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Here's my next question. Also confirming most of what I said: Just a big data base from past human knowledge. Nothing new or creative.

Me: Where did you get this information from?
10:07 AM





Claude: Good question! I should clarify - I wasn't drawing from search results or external sources just now. This comes from my training data, which includes a wide range of philosophical, theological, and academic texts that I was exposed to before my knowledge cutoff (end of January 2025).
The perspectives I outlined are well-established positions in philosophy of religion that have been discussed for centuries:

• Theistic arguments like fine-tuning, cosmological arguments, and moral arguments are classical positions you'd find in works by philosophers like William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga, or Thomas Aquinas (historically)
• Atheistic arguments about lack of evidence and the problem of evil come from thinkers like Bertrand Russell, J.L. Mackie, or more recently folks like Graham Oppy
• Agnostic positions have been articulated by philosophers like Thomas Huxley (who coined the term) and others who emphasize epistemic humility

I was synthesizing these into a brief overview rather than quoting or citing specific sources. If you'd like me to search for more current discussions, specific arguments, or particular philosophical works on this topic, I'm happy to do that. Or if you want to explore any of these perspectives more deeply, I can elaborate on the arguments themselves.

Claude seems to have received his training by taking a Philosophy 101 course at a mid-level college and is a B student, reciting what he learned about the arguments for and against religion. OF course, I'm just using the free Claude. Maybe if I bought the $100 version, he;d be advanced to an A-. student. But he still wouldn;t have a soul, heart or be sentient. Claude's spitting back human knowledge already acquired that it was trained on. Since Claude isn't sentient, and never will be, it cannot decide it;s own beliefs about religion or any other thing. It has to rely on past human experience that it learned in training in AI school.

It's the same thing with art as with religion. If you believe that creativity is mathematical, such as the rule of thirds, converging lines, etc, then Claude will seem creative. But if you believe creativity comes from the soul and feelings that AI cannot have, then creativity is beyond AI.

 

[Sean]

Claude seems to have received his training by taking a Philosophy 101 course at a mid-level college and is a B student, reciting what he learned about the arguments for and against religion. OF course, I'm just using the free Claude. Maybe if I bought the $100 version, he;d be advanced to an A-. student. But he still wouldn;t have a soul, heart or be sentient. Claude's spitting back human knowledge already acquired that it was trained on. Since Claude isn't sentient, and never will be, it cannot decide it;s own beliefs about religion or any other thing. It has to rely on past human experience that it learned in training in AI school.

It's the same thing with art as with religion. If you believe that creativity is mathematical, such as the rule of thirds, converging lines, etc, then Claude will seem creative. But if you believe creativity comes from the soul and feelings that AI cannot have, then creativity is beyond AI.

I know it is not sentient but my interactions with it felt beyond a chatbot (paid tier though). But you have set a good baseline to see how it evolves, and yes the free tiers are quite less capable. I tend to believe we are a biological computer, and see no reason a neuromorphic processing ai (or other tech) can't eventually gain sentience. It would not be "human" intelligence but it could be a new intelligence beyond our own (another whole can of worms). Again, if you think LLMs are the end all be all of ai you're missing the bigger picture. I've seen 5yrs of arguments over limitations and those limitations crumble every few months along the way, and it is still happening. I'm not exactly taking sides, just doing what I can to make sense of it, and I do have serious concerns (sadness even) over how it is about to change the art world. So many questions. In the context of human made art, if you prompt ai to "create a song that moves me", and it achieves that, how did something "without a soul" create a song that moved you? You might say "it was trained on all human music and spat out a song using the required techniques", but is it all that different to 4 human musicians taking influence from their favorite past artists? Would your views change if this year ai creates 100% new physics?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I know it is not sentient but my interactions with it felt beyond a chatbot (paid tier though). But you have set a good baseline to see how it evolves, and yes the free tiers are quite less capable. I tend to believe we are a biological computer, and see no reason a neuromorphic processing ai (or other tech) can't eventually gain sentience. It would not be "human" intelligence but it could be a new intelligence beyond our own (another whole can of worms). Again, if you think LLMs are the end all be all of ai you're missing the bigger picture. I've seen 5yrs of arguments over limitations and those limitations crumble every few months along the way, and it is still happening. I'm not exactly taking sides, just doing what I can to make sense of it, and I do have serious concerns (sadness even) over how it is about to change the art world. So many questions. In the context of human made art, if you prompt ai to "create a song that moves me", and it achieves that, how did something "without a soul" create a song that moved you? You might say "it was trained on all human music and spat out a song using the required techniques", but is it all that different to 4 human musicians taking influence from their favorite past artists? Would your views change if this year ai creates 100% new physics?

Innovation and creativity are rare for humans. So yes. AI will be able to produce many things that are acceptable to humans for daily use. It will make our work easier for regular stuff just as computers have been doing for decades, just maybe a little quicker and with more human pizazz. But at the end of the day, AI is a human tool, created by humans for human activity. Special innovation and creativity, new things will still require human inspiration. There's nothing inspiring in Claude. Claude acknowledged that it;s being trained with human texts and spitting back what it learned from past human activity. How is that creative. I can open a book with a Google search and get the same information. Claude just makes it easier to get. Frankly, computers have been doing that for decades, just little slower and with less regular language. Regardless of how sentient it sounds, that's just dressing it up, but there;s nothign really new in there.

 

[Sean]

Innovation and creativity are rare for humans. So yes. AI will be able to produce many things that are acceptable to humans for daily use. It will make our work easier for regular stuff just as computers have been doing for decades, just maybe a little quicker and with more human pizazz. But at the end of the day, AI is a human tool, created by humans for human activity. Special innovation and creativity, new things will still require human inspiration. There's nothing inspiring in Claude. Claude acknowledged that it;s being trained with human texts and spitting back what it learned from past human activity. How is that creative. I can open a book with a Google search and get the same information. Claude just makes it easier to get. Frankly, computers have been doing that for decades, just little slower and with less regular language. Regardless of how sentient it sounds, that's just dressing it up, but there;s nothign really new in there.

Ok, It seems your position is that current ai technologies will not go beyond current limitations, and will always be driven by human direction and human knowledge?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Ok, It seems your position is that current ai technologies will not go beyond current limitations, and will always be driven by human direction and human knowledge?

I'm not sure what you mean by that. So I'll put it a different way. I believe that computers will never be sentient. And that they'll never create or decide anything that comes from that state of being.

 

[nikos79]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. So I'll put it a different way. I believe that computers will never be sentient. And that they'll never create or decide anything that comes from that state of being.

Alan, the gap from being just "calculators" all the way to being sentient is huge!
There is a very long continuum in between, and we are currently perhaps somewhere in the middle.
Whether machines ever reach sentience is open, but it doesn’t follow that they’ll always remain mere calculators driven only by humans.

 

[nikos79]

II tend to believe we are a biological computer, and see no reason a neuromorphic processing ai (or other tech) can't eventually gain sentience.

Actually our brain is a predictive machine. It "lives" in the future by anticipating every little move or thing happening before it happens

 

[Cholentpot]

Alan, the gap from being just "calculators" all the way to being sentient is huge!
There is a very long continuum in between, and we are currently perhaps somewhere in the middle.
Whether machines ever reach sentience is open, but it doesn’t follow that they’ll always remain mere calculators driven only by humans.

They'll be able to make complex decisions but a computer will never be able to output something has hasn't been input at some point. Yes, you can say the same about humans but we make illogical connections that computers will never be able to.

 

[nikos79]

They'll be able to make complex decisions but a computer will never be able to output something has hasn't been input at some point. Yes, you can say the same about humans but we make illogical connections that computers will never be able to.

I have to agree with @koraks we are going into rounds...
Haven't we already talked about it before not being true?

Anyway here is a couple of links to some research on that:

The current state of artificial intelligence generative language models is more creative than humans on divergent thinking tasks - Scientific Reports

The emergence of publicly accessible artificial intelligence (AI) large language models such as ChatGPT has given rise to global conversations on the implications of AI capabilities. Emergent research on AI has challenged the assumption that creative potential is a uniquely human trait thus...

www.nature.com

Generative artificial intelligence models outperform students on divergent and convergent thinking assessments - Scientific Reports

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has garnered significant attention for its remarkable capabilities and is now widely used in many creative domains, sparking scientific interest in its creative capacities. While previous studies have assessed GenAI on creativity tasks, there is no...

www.nature.com

 

[MattKing]

Actually our brain is a predictive machine. It "lives" in the future by anticipating every little move or thing happening before it happens

As anyone who is married will likely appreciate ......

 

[nikos79]

As anyone who is married will likely appreciate ......