Will AI create Art?

[peqkno]

I listened to a podcast with Dr. Kai-Fu Lee

(Wikipedia: [...] Taiwanese venture capitalist, technology executive, writer, and an artificial intelligence (AI) expert.).

He talked a bit about that AI will create Art and displace artists.

Explanation:
It'll know what humans like to look at and will do art in that manner.

 

First of all, he seems like the epitome of SD orange (entering into green due to a health crisis),
so some of what he talked about for the future seemed like comsumerism¹⁰⁰ and job displacement,
not really community or emotions, so that could be why he sees good art only as: "what humans like to look at".

Still:
Will AI displace Artists?
What did he miss in the equation?

[Commodent]

AI will definitely be able to create art to the point where nobody is able to distinguish whether it was created by a human or an AI. However, I still think people will prefer human made art for no other reason than it is actually created by a human.

[ajasatya]

3 minutes ago, Commodent said:

AI will definitely be able to create art to the point where nobody is able to distinguish whether it was created by a human or an AI.

https://i1.wp.com/www.inteligenciaartificial.me/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ezgif.com-webp-to-png.png

[Roch]

50 minutes ago, Commodent said:

AI will definitely be able to create art to the point where nobody is able to distinguish whether it was created by a human or an AI. However, I still think people will prefer human made art for no other reason than it is actually created by a human.

I think AI will make art politics even worse. 

[tsuki]

@peqkno Define art. You can't.
AI needs a definition to optimize.

[CreamCat]

"Everything is art." by Leo Gura

Edited March 18, 2019 by CreamCat

[BjarkeT]

Pretty sure it already have.

Ai that compose music:

https://soundcloud.com/user-95265362

@tsuki isn't art just about some way of expressing emotions through craft? That basically what Music, Story telling and art and so on is about,

Edited March 18, 2019 by BjarkeT

[Nahm]

@peqkno

 

“Kai-Fu Lee is a Taiwanese venture capitalist, technology executive, writer, and computer scientist.” - Google.

Hmmmm...I wonder if he has any personal interest in people hearing, thinking, and believing like he does.

[Principium Nexus]

 

[Principium Nexus]

8 hours ago, Commodent said:

AI will definitely be able to create art to the point where nobody is able to distinguish whether it was created by a human or an AI. However, I still think people will prefer human made art for no other reason than it is actually created by a human.

Just create one perfect AI that has a human online identity, it will create it's own art/music/videos and sell it online in it's own webstore. You will only be able to tell if someone is real if you have seen them in person (ignoring cyborgs here hehe).

[CreamCat]

 

[Scholar]

On 3/18/2019 at 5:02 PM, peqkno said:

I listened to a podcast with Dr. Kai-Fu Lee

(Wikipedia: [...] Taiwanese venture capitalist, technology executive, writer, and an artificial intelligence (AI) expert.).

He talked a bit about that AI will create Art and displace artists.

Explanation:
It'll know what humans like to look at and will do art in that manner.

 

First of all, he seems like the epitome of SD orange (entering into green due to a health crisis),
so some of what he talked about for the future seemed like comsumerism¹⁰⁰ and job displacement,
not really community or emotions, so that could be why he sees good art only as: "what humans like to look at".

Still:
Will AI displace Artists?
What did he miss in the equation?

Not quite, it is not that simple. It would be accurate to say that AI will most certainly be able to generate images which please the human eye, which even might invoke different feelings and emotions, but it will not be able to create art, at least if you have an understanding of art that comes from an artists perspective. In fact I would say that, in the case that AI has consciousness, it would be able to create art, but not human art. I will try to explain why the difference is important.

Art from my general perspective is not merely a product or a result, or even the process of connecting meaning to a given experience. Rather it is the attempt of articulating (in whatever way you want) a fundamental truth about human experience in a way in which this particular aspect becomes elevated, more obvious to the human mind. Art becomes more truthful than reality because it reveals a hidden aspect of human experience and attempts to blend out the mundane. This is something Jordan B Peterson is talking about, even if he is articulating it in a different way. A book like Harry Potter contains a truth about human experience that goes beyond all naturalistic descriptions of reality. Yes it is simplifying natural reality, it is extracting irrelevant information and pushing forth that which it wants to communicate.

If you look at a painting like this, the way the values are grouped, the way the edges are controlled masterfully to lead the eye through the painting in a very deliberate way, it's all intentional. And furthermore it is not how reality looks like, yet somehow this painting tells us more about this person and the artist than a photo ever could have communicate to us. Why is that? Because a photograph simply captures reality, it does not capture an experience. In this case the artist, who is John Singer Sargent, communicated his own experience of reality onto the canvas. He took what he felt to be most important and he painted it in a way so that we would see that it is the most important aspect. We get an actual insight into the mind of the artist, a communication of how he experience this very moment of his existence.

If you look at the features of the face you will notice that there is contrast between the values and edges so that this aspect of the painting captures the viewers attention. Of course we could teach an AI to do the same thing, to generate an image just like that (even though I don't even believe that will be possible, though that is another discussion entirely), but what would lack in the process of creation would be the intention. An artificial intelligence does not intend to communicate it's experience, because it does not experience. It does not feel like any of the aspects of the picture are more important than the others, because it does not experience any pictures. That is why you need to feed it data so it can generate anything. A human being does not require that because their consciousness is the source of the intention.

Art is basically:

Consciousness -> Experience -> Intention of communication -> Manifestation of communication within reality

We can only communicate our experiences if the receiver of the communication is capable of experiencing the same thing. That is what art truly is, it is taking a particular aspect of experience that the artists wants to communicate and extracting it's essence, leaving all unnecessary information out. It is unfortunate that this principle or understanding is not a conscious part of our generation of artist, to the great detriment of culture and society at large. It is not just because it would result in better art, but because right now we are so disconnected from our nature, from our experiences. The process of art can be a process of spiritual inquiry, as it requires us to inspect the fundamental truths of our experiences. Today we operate on such a surface level that we don't even consider this.

 

Quote

The search for this inner truth is the search for beauty. People whose vision does not penetrate beyond the narrow limits of the commonplace, and to whom a cabbage is but a vulgar vegetable, are surprised if they see a beautiful picture painted of one, and say that the artist has idealised it, meaning that he has consciously altered its appearance on some idealistic formula; whereas he has probably only honestly given expression to a truer, deeper vision than they had been aware of. The commonplace is not the true, but only the shallow, view of things. 
[...]
Our moments of peace are, I think, always associated with some form of beauty, of this spark of harmony within corresponding with some infinite source without. [...]. In moments of beauty (for beauty is, strictly speaking, a state of mind rather than an attribute of certain objects [...]) we seem to get a glimpse of this deeper truth behind the things of sense. And who can say but that this sense, dull enough in most of us, is not an echo of a greater harmony existing somewhere the other side of things, that we dimly feel through them, evasive though it is.

From Harold Speed, you should read some of his books.

Another good quote:

Quote

Art is the expression of the invisible by means of the visible.

 

Edited April 10, 2019 by Scholar

[Hellspeed]

Probably not, because art is a path to enlightenment. But preprogrammed art yes. Random insights about one specific nvironment is just for the living beings to achieve.

[martins name]

Ai right now can imitate humans or make blends of different human art. But it can not push the bounderies in a meaningfull way without having an understanding of the human spyche. Great art comes from our subcounsiouss, not just copying what came before us.