Why I think AI-generated art is not art

[SporgyTheReader]

As a traditional artist, I'd say that AI-generated art is like microwaved chicken nuggets, it's premade, artificial, puts minimum effort to make, and is bad for you. The main problem with the use of AI-generated art is that it relies on pre-existing art to function as well some of the stuff generated being based off of a specific artist's style, this serves as direct competition with said specific artist. Imagine spending years perfecting your craft only for some bozo using a machine to copy your style and art, it comes off as art theft, if I'm being honest. And if your some snob that wants to argue on the philosophy on what is considered art, then I say that AI art is not art as a machine only has a rudimentary understanding of what is considered art and doesn't have a actually deep understanding of art, since some of these images have signatures on them despite not being created by a person. Because that's what the machines learned when observing pieces made by humans and so it begins to copy without understanding why it is there.

 

[Swank]

So if an AI digested a much wider swath of art and then created something that doesn't quite resemble the style of any other particular artist, you would say that is art?

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

I agree in general. And I think the same argument can potentially be made about AI's 'creative writing'. Is it art? Is it truly creative?

The way I see it, the output of AI is never excellent and never comes close to matching the best human endeavor (or even competent human endeavor). If I ask it to write me a story it will be unable match anything I can produce myself. Having said that, I wonder if that is really the point To be useful, it doesn't need to be excellent, it simply needs to exceed the abilities of whatever particular individual is relying on it.

For example, when it comes to the generation of art, I recently tried out an image-generating machine (after someone linked to it on sff chrons). The result, at first glance, looked pretty good. Upon closer inspection, it wasn't good at all; forearms out of proportion to upper arms, background perspective all wrong, a few objects that didn't look like anything in particular. It didn't stand up to scrutiny. Having said that, it was still way better than anything I could have produced myself (not being that kind of artist). I might have been tempted to make use of the image for that reason.

Anyway, AI may come to take its place in the spectrum of art. Already, in the human realm, there is good art and bad art (subjective, of course). And already there is plagiarism, copying and art that is highly derivative (‘It’s called stealing’: new allegations of plagiarism against Roy Lichtenstein).

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

As a traditional artist, I'd say that AI-generated art is like microwaved chicken nuggets, it's premade, artificial, puts minimum effort to make, and is bad for you. The main problem with the use of AI-generated art is that it relies on pre-existing art to function as well some of the stuff generated being based off of a specific artist's style, this serves as direct competition with said specific artist. Imagine spending years perfecting your craft only for some bozo using a machine to copy your style and art, it comes off as art theft, if I'm being honest. And if your some snob that wants to argue on the philosophy on what is considered art, then I say that AI art is not art as a machine only has a rudimentary understanding of what is considered art and doesn't have a actually deep understanding of art, since some of these images have signatures on them despite not being created by a person. Because that's what the machines learned when observing pieces made by humans and so it begins to copy without understanding why it is there.

This gets pretty deep into the definition of "Art." As a rule, this looks like a great analysis.

This gets into the basic philosophy of art forgery. What if that same bozo uses a paint brush to copy your style and art instead of a machine?

 

[Harpo]

I disagree.

People said “it’s not art” about many artists in the past, especially those who were pushing boundaries, like those involved in Futurism, Dada, Fluxus, etc etc, and more recent artists such as Banksy, Richard Long, Carl Andre, Jeff Koons, Tracey Emin, or Andy Goldsworthy have continued the “but is it art?” argument.
AI is doing the same thing, it isn’t a person,that’s all.
I once saw a painting by the famous chimpanzee Cheetah, who also wasn’t a person.

Also, what if the person prompting the AI in the first place is an artist? Does the result continue to not be art because it’s AI?
Or does the involvement of the artist make it art?
(And if so, what about anything else the artist makes, such as a sandwich or a ‘to do’ list)

 

[Danny McG]

like microwaved chicken nuggets, it's premade, artificial, puts minimum effort to make, and is bad for you

But so tasty with ketchup

 

[Harpo]

But so tasty with ketchup

You’re such a comedian

Comedian (artwork) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

You’re such a comedian

Comedian (artwork) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Sticking a banana to a wall with duct tape is a complex operation that AI/Robotics has not mastered. Amazing how we worry so much about something that is so backward.

 

[Astro Pen]

How to express what I think?

I was tempted to post a picture of a vibrator and caption it : "This is not love."

 

[AllanR]

I like the definition of art in Understanding Comics --art is anything that doesn't arise from either our species two basic instincts, reproduction and survival. (the whole thing is a great read) Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art : Scott McCloud : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[Dave]

These things are not a true AI, so in that respect I agree with the statements made in the OP.

AI art is not art as a machine only has a rudimentary understanding of what is considered art and doesn't have a actually deep understanding of art

A true AI would have a deep understanding of art, have an intelligence, and have been trained. The work would be original.

I think the same argument can potentially be made about AI's 'creative writing'

I also agree that they aren't AIs either. These are all machines being used by humans in the same way as a print is made of a painting, or a photocopier makes copies. It's a cut and paste from exisiting material already created by humans. There is no"intelligence" there, either artifical or otherwise. If there is, then the artist is a human working with the machines, as a craftsman would use his tools.

If and when we do have true AIs, then that will not be the case. I don't believe that is near, despite many people getting excited/worried by this.

 

[Swank]

These things are not a true AI, so in that respect I agree with the statements made in the OP.

What's a true AI?

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

What's a true AI?

Well, I think we can safely say this isn't intelligence (artificial or otherwise):

CW: What is the next number in the sequence 3, 2, 9, 4, 81, 16? And why?

CHAT GPT: It's difficult to determine the pattern in the given sequence, as there doesn't seem to be any obvious mathematical relationship between the numbers. Therefore, it's not possible to determine the next number with certainty.
Without any additional information or context, it's possible that this is a sequence of random numbers or that there is a mistake in the sequence itself. If there is any additional information or context available, it may help in identifying the pattern and predicting the next number.


What if we define intelligence as the ability to solve a unique problem? I think @Dave would be correct that the current AI offerings are not intelligent according to this criteria.

 

[Wayne Mack]

I tend to take a more benign view. Technology continues to advance and, just as it did before AI made its latest splash, it makes difficult tasks simpler. If an AI driven tool allows someone to enter in a bizarre prompt and then experience that moment of wonder when an image appears and the person can, 'I did that!' Well, that constitutes art for me. Interesting image creation is now available to the masses and it is creating a little bit of joy in the world.

 

[Astro Pen]

6561 ?

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

6561 ?

Yes! (But you realise there is no prize?)

 

[Robert Zwilling]

People said “it’s not art” about many artists in the past, especially those who were pushing boundaries, like those involved in Futurism, Dada, Fluxus, etc etc, and more recent artists such as Banksy, Richard Long, Carl Andre, Jeff Koons, Tracey Emin, or Andy Goldsworthy have continued the “but is it art?” argument.

I don't think its not the same thing.
Right now, most if not all of AI art is 2 dimensional but it won't be long before someone hooks up a 3D printer to art generating program so it could make a urinal or whatever else you want to make.

The stuff that isn't art presented as art is in response to a set of circumstances, an intelligent response to a complex situation. AI art where the machine is doing the choosing is random, no thought exists.

AI programs are producing art when a person is twirling the dials. The problem is what is the meaning behind the actions when the person is just twirling the dials randomly. If the random twirling produces repeatable patterns that people like, that is called art. Maybe its even a free lunch. But there are far more people randomly splashing paint around or really trying to make something recognizable who never get their work seen as collectible art than those who get recognition for their random mutterings. This means that there is something more to art than just random motions. Copying known patterns that people like is producing art, but it isn't creating art.

There are countless numbers of patterns, plenty of which have not been seen yet. Can machines accidentally stumble across a pattern that elicits a noticeable human response? Probably yes, and what will that mean?

I create 2 kinds of art, recognizable though perhaps the meaning isn't clear, and just random splashes. I have failures (not really wanted by anyone) for both types. When it works I can repeat the pattern, though not always, but I don't know why the pattern gets a positive response. There are two types of positive responses, I like that, or I'll buy that. One of them doesn't count. But even that isn't so simple. Some people buy art just because it is considered to be an investment. Just another coin of the realm.

 

[Swank]

Well, I think we can safely say this isn't intelligence (artificial or otherwise):

CW: What is the next number in the sequence 3, 2, 9, 4, 81, 16? And why?

CHAT GPT: It's difficult to determine the pattern in the given sequence, as there doesn't seem to be any obvious mathematical relationship between the numbers. Therefore, it's not possible to determine the next number with certainty.
Without any additional information or context, it's possible that this is a sequence of random numbers or that there is a mistake in the sequence itself. If there is any additional information or context available, it may help in identifying the pattern and predicting the next number.


What if we define intelligence as the ability to solve a unique problem? I think @Dave would be correct that the current AI offerings are not intelligent according to this criteria.

That's more what intelligence is not, not what it is. There should be no expectation that AI will be intelligent in a way that people are.

Right now AI art is an attempt to make something a person would approve of. There's no reason an AI should want or prefer the 'beauty' of a 2D still image that vaguely resembles a 2D, single lens version of the kind of reality we occupy. That's 100% human territory. If an AI was truly creative, I doubt we'd be able to understand what kind of art it is working in.

 

[Dave]

What's a true AI?

There is a clue to what a true AI is in the name, but you want someone to define "intelligence"? I certainly can't do that, it's an argument in Psychology, and it will mean different thngs to different people. It isn't currently well defined or tested. I agree with Christine Wainright about what it is not, and that these current machines are not. When it does arrive, then I'll be able to tell you that it has.

There should be no expectation that AI will be intelligent in a way that people are.

Except that has actually been the goal of people working towards it (or else it was for the most part of my lifetime.) The 'Turing Test' was specifically designed to measure intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. So far, it has been purely an imitation game and that is not enough since these current machines now pass that test easily

If we met aliens from another planet with the technology to visit us, there is no reason that they will be intelligent in the same way as people are either, but if that happens then we will need to find new better ways to define and test intelligence. IQ tests, Turing Tests and other such tests, do require some prior knowledge of the test methodology and/or to behave like a human (or at least like another mammal or an octopus.)

There's no reason an AI should want or prefer the 'beauty' of a 2D still image that vaguely resembles a 2D, single lens version of the kind of reality we occupy. That's 100% human territory. If an AI was truly creative, I doubt we'd be able to understand what kind of art it is working in.

Which is all probably true. It isn't what the OP was complaining about. If that happened then traditional artisits might have to redefine their own definitions of "Art". The thread was about "so called" intelligent machines imitating art and creative writing, and an imitation is all they are doing at the present time. However, as I said already, I'd see them more of an artist's "tool." I'd compare them to a brush in the same way that a programmable automatic lathe would be compared to a chisel.

 

[Foxbat]

About twenty years ago I built an art installation. I wasn’t the artist. The artist told me what he wanted and I built it for him. I was the tool (some would say a right tool) and, in the same way as any tool can be misused, that’s my view of AI art…it’s the misuse of a tool.

I have no knowledge of art but, in the same way that an artist told me what he wanted, then if a human sets the parameters of an AI routine then it is the human and not the routine that is the artist, just as I was not the artist of the piece I built.

It seems to me that it’s up to the art community to navigate a way through this because the genie is out of the bottle and it won’t be uninvented.