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.

 

[nikos79]

There is some ongoing speculation that conscience might derive from quantum entanglement and this is how our brain works.
Quantum entanglement is already present in nature e.g. plants through photosynthesis uses it.
If the quantum computation can be merged with neural networks perhaps conscience might then emerge

 

[Cholentpot]

There is some ongoing speculation that conscience might derive from quantum entanglement and this is how our brain works.
Quantum entanglement is already present in nature e.g. plants through photosynthesis uses it.
If the quantum computation can be merged with neural networks perhaps conscience might then emerge

Trees aren't painting chapels and it's been a few hundred million years.

 

[MattKing]

Trees aren't painting chapels and it's been a few hundred million years.

Maybe not painting them, but some might say they create them:

 

[Cholentpot]

Maybe not painting them, but some might say they create them:
View attachment 415542

Are the trees doing this for aesthetic reasons? Can trees make art? If a tree makes art in the woods but no human is there to appreciate it, is it art?

 

[MattKing]

Are the trees doing this for aesthetic reasons? Can trees make art? If a tree makes art in the woods but no human is there to appreciate it, is it art?

Sorry, but my Ent friends aren't answering their phones .
I might suggest though that trees reaching for the light may have real parallels with humans reaching for the aesthetically satisfying.

 

[Pieter12]

no human is there to appreciate it, is it art?

Art is a human concept, so of course not.

 

[Alan Townsend]

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.

Ignorant and/or stupid people can make random motions on a canvas with a brush without thinking about anything. Is that art? You can slip a dog's tail in some paint and put a canvas behind them. Is that art. You can give a monkey a squirt gun loaded with water colors and put a canvas in front of them. Is that art? I don't think any of these are "art" whatever that means. Somone selling any of these as art is okay, because under capitalism, lieing to make a sale is okay. So it all depends on are you a buyer or a seller or a producer of art yourself, all different perspectives. So I would answer you no, yes, and maybe.

 

[Pieter12]

Art is what humans determine to be art for themselves. Historical, cultural, ethic, social, economics, education, age and a myriad of other factors may influence how and if they consider something art. Who or what produced the "art" may or may not be a consideration. at what point is decoration art--maybe all decoration is art. Is a flower not art, but a depiction of a flower is? If that depiction was made by a machine (be it a computer, automaton or a camera) is it art? Up to you.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Art is a human concept, so of course not.

The definition of art as a human concept. I agree.

 

[nikos79]

Trees aren't painting chapels and it's been a few hundred million years.

You are right maybe I didn’t explain it that well.
Quantum entanglement might not bring consciousness alone but along with a biological (or artificial?) neural network.
I just wanted to highlight that quantum entanglement that many consider as science fiction already exists

P.s. don’t ask me to explain quantum entanglement I don’t get it myself

 

[Cholentpot]

Sorry, but my Ent friends aren't answering their phones .
I might suggest though that trees reaching for the light may have real parallels with humans reaching for the aesthetically satisfying.

That's a human interpretation of what the trees are doing. So just like AI, the human is needed to make it art.

Art is a human concept, so of course not.

I think this is the core of the issue. AI cannot make art because AI is not human.

You are right maybe I didn’t explain it that well.
Quantum entanglement might not bring consciousness alone but along with a biological (or artificial?) neural network.
I just wanted to highlight that quantum entanglement that many consider as science fiction already exists

P.s. don’t ask me to explain quantum entanglement I don’t get it myself

First book I read on quantum had an intro, if you think you understand quantum mechanics you don't understand quantum mechanics.

 

[Pieter12]

I think this is the core of the issue. AI cannot make art because AI is not human.

A human can appreciate something as art even if it is not made by a human. That is why painters paint landscapes, photographers take photos. They see the (possible) art in the scene. However, the creator of the "art" does not have to be acknowledged for it to be considered art by the viewer. If you were to go to a thrift store and see an in image that you liked and considered art, you would not nor even need not know if a human produced it. It would still be art for you.

 

[Cholentpot]

A human can appreciate something as art even if it is not made by a human. That is why painters paint landscapes, photographers take photos. They see the (possible) art in the scene. However, the creator of the "art" does not have to be acknowledged for it to be considered art by the viewer. If you were to go to a thrift store and see an in image that you liked and considered art, you would not nor even need not know if a human produced it. It would still be art for you.

When I hang it on the wall I've now made it something. By observing it I've made it art. Yes, I understand the concept in itself is art. The idea that I recognize this AI creation as art is a statement and that makes it artistic. But that's no different than seeing random squiggles on a window. Unless I acknowledge and present it somehow, it's just jack frost.