If you saw a picture, hypothetically at some point in the future, and thought it was beautiful and or meaningful art, and then subsequently learned that it’s ai generated, would you change your mind about it?
I would still think it’s beautiful, but I’d know it was artificially generated using models researched by the AI.
Btw, I see a lot of people criticizing AI made pics, songs, etc, because it’s so easy and convenient that it will take the job of a lot of real artists.
Yes but other than that, would it hold the same meaning and value to you? Or would that fundamentally devalue it?
Devalue. Something a 8 yo could generate in 30 seconds.
Would the same go for say, a great car? If it was created by a machine that was activated by a toddler pressing a button, would you value it less than if it was manually constructed by a team of men?
I think I would value the fruits of AI pretty highly if they were good - like if I was a coder I would probably value an AI for taking a lot of work off my hands, and value the code it produced just fine.
With art there is the question of originality. An example of ‘true art’ to my mind would be Dante’s writing, regardless of my valuing of it – it did, by conjuring up hell as we’ve known it since, construct a whole new world in mankinds imagination and changed peoples sense of morality and behavior, and at the same time raised the Italian language to a new level from which it became standardized. FJ’s posted image of the fisherman doesn’t attain to that level of reality-altering power, but then very little art does. I made a lot of film and music and drawing and writing that all could be called art by some definitions, but I would call very little of it art, myself. Most is just craft.
More on AI visual art/craft;
Yeah we would. They did this experiment years ago when AI started to write pretty decent classical music. When they showed people the music without telling them it was AI, they rated it highly and said it had emotion and soul and depth, and asked which famous composer made it. When they told other people it was AI before listening, they described it with words like bland, artificial, formulaic.
But even with this bias, if AI progress continues to be rapid, it will just be a fact that all the AI art will be way better than the human art if you couldn’t know who made it. Even if AI doesn’t become conscious. But people will still value the knowledge that something was created by a human. Even if it’s, relatively, like a kindergartner who did a finger painting… lol.
1 Like
That’s super interesting. Would you be able to find a link to that?
Maybe it will get to a point where… People have to make a choice in life between “easy mode” and “hard mode”. With “easy mode”, you get a lot handed to you - AI teachers, AI servants, free money and easy resources, AI to help solve every problem you have, and maybe even brain implants to make you think faster or be able to use the Internet with your mind or whatever.
And then hard mode, where you do everything just the way we would’ve done it in the late 20th/early 21st century. I can imagine we would respect the people who do hard mode.
Sure. I read it in the book Homo Deus by Yuval Noah Harari. If you look up David Cope’s EMI (experiments in musical intelligence) you should find it.
Here’s a detailed link about the music program: David Cope: 'You pushed the button and out came hundreds and thousands of sonatas' | Artificial intelligence (AI) | The Guardian
“People tell me they don’t hear soul in the music. When they do that, I pull out a page of notes and ask them to show me where the soul is. We like to think that what we hear is soul, but I think audience members put themselves down a lot in that respect. The feelings that we get from listening to music are something we produce, it’s not there in the notes. It comes from emotional insight in each of us, the music is just the trigger.”
-Professor David Cope.
Here’s an example of research into anti-AI bias in music: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://libjournals.unca.edu/ncur/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Caputo-Alyssa-FINAL.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiEsYGP1rKOAxUD0DQHHSBaOuEQFnoECBwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0m3OaObcTIRiRmeUofgCX_
From the conclusion:
"Music composed using artificial intelligence is less likely to be considered a work of art. What does this mean for the future of music? Music could revert to being associated more with the sciences than the arts. This brings into question whether the other fine arts, such as painting and poetry, would also be less likely to be considered an art.
If that would happen, the gap between art and science may be bridged until there is no longer a clear distinction between them. In fact, this bridge could be extremely beneficial to society. Combining natural human abilities such as language processing, image recognition, and creativity with the computational power of computers could open a world of endless possibilities. Viewed properly, humans and computers are not competitors, but collaborators working together; computers lend humans the processing power necessary to augment humans’ abilities and enable them to overcome physical and mental limitations."
1 Like
A sane approach.
What do I always say- look for what’s sane.
AI is a tool. AI is here to help us and to facilitate our work. You can spend six months trying to “decipher” Spinoza, but AI can give you the essentials of his ideas in 30 seconds. It facilitates immensely the comprehension of difficult topics.
But then, about the music made by AI, it’s all based on imitation of learned patterns. The masters had to live first for all this “creation” to be possible. That’s what I value- the original work, the original effort of the artist. Imitating, emulating, it’s all very easy. Like making a cover of a well-known song. To create a song that becomes a new standard, that’s the difficult thing.
This being said, being a music fan, AI made music means nothing to me. No matter how beautiful.
1 Like
I dunno but i watched some AI generated porn yesterday and good gracious, son. I don’t even wanna look at real women anymore. Megan Fox in her prime? Pfft. That bitch look like Margaret Thatcher.