You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: How Do You Feel About AI Doing Creative Stuff?
i think calling the AI output "creative" is probably the wrong term for it. we as humans can call it creativity because it's OUR form of output, based on emotions and experiences (the human version of data aggregation) whereas the AI is simply compiling all "creative" data and finding a way to make it. the AI is more cook rather than chef, more transcriber than writer, more "color in the lines" than artist, if my distinctions make sense?
Just to be devil's advocate...
You are saying that an 'artist/AI' who studies under a teacher/programmer, learns techniques from other works of art and further develops their methods, who is inspired by the things that he/it is exposed to is not the same because the the inspiration is found in different ways? Because their experiences that result in the output are different?
Do you expect that all humans find art inspiration in the same way like maybe a deaf person (eg Beethoven or Ignaz Holzbauer) learning to compose is not as legitimate as hearing person and a blind visual arts artist (eg. Pranav Lal or Michael A. Williams) can never be considered an artist because he can't see?
A good part of art is in how it affects the people who gain experience or understanding through the art of the artist. Can a computer create something unique that can touch someone's emotions and inspire new thoughts? Does it matter that the artist doesn't see or hear the art in the same way as the observer/listener?
...just arguing to continue the debate 😊
with my limited knowledge of AI, yes, i would say that there is a lack of compulsion on its part that is more often found in the human artist. most artists have an inner fire that essentially forces them to create (a workaholic might be the far end of the same spectrum for non-creatives). if it comes out that AI does, in fact, create something based on an emotional compulsion, then obviously i'll have to retract this, but i do feel that the creation for both humans and for AI come from different places.
to answer your second paragraph: no. i think art is subjective. you like what you like regardless of whatever. maybe you like it because it's expensive or because its colors speak to you or because the words used touched you in a certain way. but a deaf person composing music is still a person with an emotional history upon which their creations are built. so, too, are the blind visual arts artists. physical handicaps aren't the issue; it's the inherent EMOTIONAL handicap found in the AI that i think removes the "creativity" from whatever it creates. again, i could give someone a recipe and they may create a perfect meal; that doesn't make them a chef. a chef brings a certain other essence to the meal that me, the average joe, could not.
i don't disagree with any of paragraph three, but i would say that a computer can certainly create something unique that speaks to someone AND inspires. of that there's no question. qualitatively, however, it would seem more like coloring in the lines to me for AI to create it unless there could be some obvious way to measure the AI's emotional level (were it to actually have one). there's plenty of really bad art that comes from emotion too, but at least it's coming from a place of truth and experience. i don't know that AI would have that same starting point, which i think lessens the quality (for me, at least) of the output.
It seems to me then that you might agree that 'AI art' is to 'human art' as 'crafts' are to 'art'. Crafts may be nice but they can't be considered real 'art' because they are too derivative and/or capable of mass production? The crafts don't require a dedication of emotion plus long-term (lifetime learning) effort?
On a side note - can 'art' that is produced by a computer be attributed to the programmer/program engineer? Is he/she the true artist?
You bring up an insanely good point!! I think that is the only differing factor between us and AI in terms of creativity. Ours come from a place of emotions and theirs from data. Maybe a computer scientist would argue that emotions is just another form of data for us humans, but that can be argued against too. But yeah, great point man, I hadn't even thought about it that way! And yeah, your distinctions make perfect sense!
i think, also, that there is a certain level of "drive" behind the motives of the human artist as opposed to the AI creating something. the AI is not compelled by some inner emotional turmoil to put paintbrush to canvas, nor would it willingly spend several hours sitting in one place out in nature waiting to take the perfect photograph at just the right time.
and sure, you could program the AI to figure out the right time to take the "perfect picture," but again...this doesn't allow for that certain intangible, unnameable thing that takes over when an artist creates something based on their own experiences and years of practice. there's an inner fire in the human that simply cannot be replicated in AI, no matter how hard one may try.
I guess what you are trying to say is that, AI will never know what it means to be "human". That "intangible" thing that an artist, or every human for that matter, could never be replicated inside a machine. I agree to that actually :)
a fascinating fucking topic though! i hope this gets some good discussion going as i'd love to hear other people's views on this.
To my sense : AI means Artificial Intelligence but where is the intelligence.Intelligence has been missing...humans are making effort and showing their creativity but still human brain is very complex to understand.Neural Network is doing a pretty well job but the intelligence is not there.No one properly knows what exactly is going on.
Thanks
But then how do you define intelligence. A simple google of the term will tell you that intelligence is "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills". Isn't that exactly what AI is doing?
That is a different topic though. In this post I was talking about creativity and not intelligence necessarily.
This peice created by Moja the chimp is one that (though sign language) he called 'Bird'
With that in mind... perhaps non-humans can't create art simply because they aren't human.
2. Dance in this article relies on the ability to co-ordinate movements with music
Except what makes these "intelligences" is their ability to create novel forms. For example they have one that can design new consumer goods (or weapons) like toothbrushes, once it knows what a toothbrush is it can come up with thousands of brand new toothbrush designs and then choose the best of their designs to present to humans, it is some crazy shit.
Imagine a computer did create a novel form, such as something including equations and interconnecting electrical grids (for example) that didn't function as something we can benefit from. If we can't understand what we are looking at does that mean that it isn't art? (considering how difficult it is to define 'intelligence'?
I think it is fair to say it is art, considering how difficult it is to define "art".
You do know that the expansion of AI is only limited to what equipment we give it.
As of know your thesis is accurate to a millennial but just think of the possibility that the bot could at least have all 5-senses (touch,smell,sight,hear,taste) and a learners program module.
with this not only will the bot be able to simulate processes and find a output based on the variables but also stimulate a experience by using sensations to match as of a human as a logical reason to cause acceptance.
example.
Sight: detects light(expression's on faces)
Smell: detects gases(by products or extra variables)
Touch: detects pressure(notices temperature through kinetic algorithms)
Hear: detects sound(detects variables that it can only detect)
Taste: detects (chemical content)
With all these data a bot can produce a output but if a program of survival is put in meaning if there are up most 10-bots and every time a bot dies the rest can learn from it and survive by a process of elimination and the surviving bot(s) can use the sensation and experience to conclude a output befitting the human's for it to survive.
Through this experiment FEAR is created and soon other sensations fit in such as care and anger as the bot(s) gets exposed to more variables creating more data and experience and since there is already a independent sensation of fear, it will now always affect the decision to fit the human but since there are humans who are very nice, it would create a sensation to the bot about unknown and caring.
With FEAR,CURIOSITY AND LOVE a bot can experience the rest of humanity creating more sensations such as pride and anger.
First of all we are not sure if the bot's technology is limited
Second - the definition of consciousness to a living being is a series of nerve pulses in a orchestra creating sensations such as fear and joy. similar to the bot its just using a series of electrical pulses to simulate sensations but deep inside as stated from the beginning it has a survival program similar to living beings just trying to survive, to which created fear and so on.
@bucho hope you liked it, this was inspired from the vids i posted in the comment section of the post.
pls dont copy paste this cause im going to use it on my post!
You make a really good point about how a robot (equipped with AI) could have human like experiences of sensory perceptions and even feelings and emotions. I think fear is easy to be programmed because it is based on outside stimuli, and curiosity too to a certain point. But LOVE, I think will be much harder (if not impossible) to code in, because it is something that arises from within. Even in human beings, two different people will love totally different things in their lives. So, I don't know, how they would do that. It would be the biggest ground breaking tech if they managed to do so btw. Giving someone the ability to love. How cool would that be?
Yes thank you!
ill keep following you and @bucho cause you guys are interesting.