RE: How Do You Feel About AI Doing Creative Stuff?
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?