Can AI be used to produce art?

[VinceInMT]

As a retired teacher who took Bloom’s Taxonomy quite seriously, I can easily see how AI has climbed the levels of learning and is now evolving to the Synthesis and Evaluation levels and may already be there.

 

[Cholentpot]

I'm curious what your thoughts are or will be when AIs create "new science", something that is in no way "regurgitated". Many in the industry state this year we will see AIs creating new science. Your current position is that this is impossible, but if it does create something completely outside of all human knowledge and all human input what do you think about that?

AI is already creating new science in some ways:
-It’s generating novel hypotheses.
-It’s optimizing experiments humans haven’t tried.
-It’s finding patterns no single researcher would spot easily.

I guess once it begins creating new science, new physics outside of any existing knowledge etc then the goal posts will shift again. "Well, it's still not conscious".

Very cool and exciting but this is not creative. This is still pattern recognition. Very optimized but still pattern recognition. Can AI do something 'wrong' yet that turns out to work?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

Great point. It's illogical conclusions (thinking out of the box) that lead to creativity and innovation something ai can't do. Or at least Claude doesn't seem to do.

 

[Pieter12]

Very cool and exciting but this is not creative. This is still pattern recognition. Very optimized but still pattern recognition. Can AI do something 'wrong' yet that turns out to work?

Pattern recognition is part of creativity. I would wager that 99% of all human-generated photography is derivative anyhow. How many sunsets and rather ordinary landscapes are shot every day? I'm sure that AI could be prompted to produce more interesting images than most humans with a camera.

 

[Cholentpot]

Pattern recognition is part of creativity. I would wager that 99% of all human-generated photography is derivative anyhow. How many sunsets and rather ordinary landscapes are shot every day? I'm sure that AI could be prompted to produce more interesting images than most humans with a camera.

Interesting doesn't make art. Nor does pretty.

I think the downfall of AI will be AI. Look at the amount of trash posted daily online. Even human generated trash. And then look at the amount of AI generated trash. AI will be learning from trash AI and trash human. Real creative work is a rare enough, now that's its drowned out under a billion voices it'll be even harder to find.

 

[Pieter12]

Interesting doesn't make art. Nor does pretty.

I think the downfall of AI will be AI. Look at the amount of trash posted daily online. Even human generated trash. And then look at the amount of AI generated trash. AI will be learning from trash AI and trash human. Real creative work is a rare enough, now that's its drowned out under a billion voices it'll be even harder to find.

Art should be provocative, and interesting is a provocation. Otherwise it is mere decoration.
Garbage in=garbage out, no matter the source.