Do you think a computer/AI will ever be able to create a great work of art/music?
Inevitably humans will come up with an artificial intelligence of some kind – some sort of positronic mind, or a collective of semi-intelligent machines networked together. Which is more or less how our brains work anyway. Do you think this creation will be able to create art or music? Do you think we will view it as art, or will we not understand it due to the differences in how our consciousnesses work?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
101 Answers
It would probably be able to make better art and music than we ever could.
But we’d be so jealous that we’d just say “Oh, well, it’s not human enough. There’s no feeling. Screw that.”
We’ve yet to manufacture soul. That’s important in music.
ultimately, the question is if you knew it was created by a machine, would you care?
You see this?
I could make a machine that could throw paint at a canvas.
But that painting just happens to be Jackson Pollock’s “Number 5.”
A.K.A. the most expensive painting ever created.
@squidcake but of course that’s programmed – I mean, could it come up with art. very cool though.
I would expect AI to create pretty decent music, but it would all be fabricated based on the patterns of other music. I would expect it to sound vaguely familiar to other, humanly composed music. I don’t think it could make any really amazing, unique, or original music.
It could probably make a really catchy tune, but like @squidcake said, we’d be jealous and say it didn’t have feeling. I’m not sure it would be amazing though.
Interesting @cbloom8 – I wonder – I mean, if it really is a consciousness… hmm… hence the question.
I’m not sure I understand how anything a computer does is not ultimately human. Humans make the algorithms. If a camera can make art (when a human being tells it what do do) why not a computer? It’s still human agency at work, isn’t it?
I think AI will create great music, surely and it will be art to some and not to others…like all else.
To clarify – AI would be also be an independent intelligence, not requiring human input.
“Do you think this creation will be able to create art or music?”
yES
”Do you think we will view it as art?”
Yes.
”...will we not understand it due to the differences in how our consciousnesses work?”
We will understand it just fine. Our consciousnesses will never be so different, as we will have made theirs.
@JeanPaulSartre The human input is implicit, even though perhaps not proximate. Who shall build and program the original computers from which the art-creating computer has descended? I don’t think you can subtract the humanity, and I believe that any work of art made by such a machine is in the last analysis a human work of art, however distal.
Even with Emily Howell, it took years & years of hard, expensive work to get a program to do what Bach or Beethoven could do naturally & I think THAT is what creates an emotional connection to music or artwork. Knowing that another human being is capable of something so magical & almost impossible to imagine. We know what machines are capable of. We take it for granted that machines can do wild & crazy things. We are jaded by it. But when you look at a human being, no different than the rest of us, from the same line of species & watch or listen to something they have done, it feels out of this world. Which is why I love going to art museums or listening to Beethoven. I remember standing before the utterly massive painting, Watson & The Shark (71¾ in × 90½ in) by Copley. It literally takes your breath away. From floor to ceiling, this giant painting was done by a single person. I think that is the reason we call it art. It’s not the paints or the notes that were used. It’s the person. The person is the work of art.
@rpmpseudonym We do not know all that machines are capable of – it is possible and probable that AI will create something that can move/intrigue us.
So, let’s figure that, AI, being capable of pure logic, can easily create music and art that we enjoy, is it really art, to the AI?
@JeanPaulSartre That ties in with questioning whether or not logic or lack thereof have anything to do with creating and perceiving art.
It would be up to humans to determine whether or not a work is great – and that’s considering that there is no work of art extant that everyone agrees is great. So, sure. I could see where a computer/AI-generated piece would be able to touch someone’s psyche in the same way that human-created objects and works considered to be art does.
In the end, all art is about how the observer experiences the work, no?
@Simone_De_Beauvoir I don’t know how to explain without sounding overly sentimental, but I feel that it undermines the essence of art as a form of expression and a statement of passion.
Not only that, but computers could already replace us in most other fields but creativity and ingenuity. And the thought that we could be disposable in those fields too is… frightening.
@Mariah Why would it be bad if computers replaced humans?
@Mariah Do you then believe that AI will not have any ability for expression or passion? What of @dpworkin ‘s claim that because we create AI, they do have a humanity?
Would AI perceive the world the same way we do, with our same 5 senses, or would it have others? Fewer/more/different? If so, wouldn’t its art and music reflect that?
@JeanPaulSartre There is no way to know – we can speculate that there might be other ways to view the world, available only to AI – and that is reason enough to create AI.
”That ties in with questioning whether or not logic or lack thereof have anything to do with creating and perceiving art.”
Yes, art requires logic in its creation. However, abstract logic, skewed logic and all sorts of art which appears based in lunacy still has a certain logic to its premise. Else it would crumble and cease to be art.
@JeanPaulSartre A pointless existence doesn’t sound bleak to you? It does to me…
@Simone_De_Beauvoir Hmm, I would have to understand more about the nature of AI to answer you better. Theoretically, after somebody programs an artificial intelligence, does it then have free will? I really don’t know much about this topic unfortunately. But if the programmer’s hand still plays a part in the making of the art, then I think I would still consider that work of art human made. Human made using a very powerful tool, yes, but still human made.
@davidbetterman indeed – so an entity that creates art that is purely logical… is it art? Would AI need to disable pure logic to create it? Would a logical entity have use for creating art or music in the first place?
@davidbetterman That is an interesting point – some people say there is no place for logic when creating art. I believe art is above logic or lack there of – but all interesting to think about. While it is possible that some logic is present in creating art, is there logic in perceiving art?
@Mariah Would we be allowed to continue to exist and consume resources by the more efficient life form?
I’d like to inject another question/thought into the discussion. I would say that we’re not searching for whether the machine can do creativity. The creation of AI allows us to search for what makes us human and the criteria that would allow a non-human intelligence to be classified as human. Which kind of raises my question: are we even addressing this question properly? Can AI be intelligent, sentient, creative w/out having to use human standards?
@Mariah When you say pointless existence, are you speaking of humans or AI?
@bobloblaw That’s an excellent question. AI would certainly have its own standards for creativity. Sentience is probably universal.
@Simone_De_Beauvoir ”is there logic in perceiving art?”
I believe there is. And I guarantee no two people view any work of art quite the same.
The different types of logic involved will alter how the work of art is seen by the observer. The real question is, does observing a work of art actually change that work of art by merely being observed?
@Simone_De_Beauvoir Humans. Again, this is probably just emotions coming into play, but I feel that if we were to create a “life-form” that is more efficient that ourselves in every way, thus making it pointless for us to bother doing, well, anything, because AI could always do it better, well… that would be sad. Because I think that a big part of being human is exploring and finding things out. I wouldn’t want something to replace human curiosity.
True, there’s probably no good, logical reason why human curiosity is a more valuable thing than AI curiosity. This is probably just me being prejudiced because I am a human and I don’t want to be replaced, damnit.
@davidbetterman perception is important – because we’re talking about many human consciousnesses, but probably a singular AI consciousness. AI would likely naturally develop as a collective.
@squidcake
There is much lost on the web view of the Pollock’s Number 5.”
The machine you envision has in effect already been invented. I do custom Giclee artwork reproductions to actual size on 54” printers. By spraying, they are in effect “throwing” pigment on canvas. And yes, I run real canvas through the machines and finish it with the whole stretch bar routine. The pigment is the same as the actual oil paint and has an archival rating of 400 years or more.
What we miss is the dimensional layering of the real Pollock Number 5. I’ve not seen any computer or printer accomplish that. There is a depth that can only be appreciated by standing in front of the real deal. And this speaks of the “soul” that @Captain_Fantasy mentioned earlier. That is actually the specific reason behind why you suggest we might claim “Oh, well, it’s not human enough. There’s no feeling. Screw that.” And you are right to do so.
However, this is the method that humans create machines to make duplications.
If a real A.I. ever arose, then it would not be making duplications. It must have the capacity to create. Otherwise it is not a genuine A.I.. That’s the qualifier as far as I’m concerned. Just as God supposedly created Man in his own image, that image being one of Artistic Creative Ability (what separates us from animals), then so too must the A.I. be created in the image of Man, and therefor have the same faculties to express and create artistically… and with soul.
@Mariah Replacement is inevitable – either by the next generation of humans or by another life form – why not something that won’t need as many resources to do so? Others have indicated that AI would still be human.
@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Do you think AI would come up with new art to match its different perceptions, or simply create art that would be human friendly?
@JeanPaulSartre Then I’m just being sentimental I guess. There is some kind of strong instinct for me to reject a lifeform that I perceive as unnatural; I don’t really have logical arguments to back it up. I mean, if they were honestly the same as humans then I guess I shouldn’t care.
One important question, though: Do AI have emotions?
@JeanPaulSartre
It must be allowed to create whatever it wants. Even human art isn’t always human friendly. One might actually say, that true art can’t be human friendly. True art must force us to question ourselves, and many times that means facing our deepest profanities.
@Mariah I understand the reservations to say that a machine should replace humans – how we define natural and evolution would probably change.
@Mariah If they don’t, does that make them ‘un-natural’ – are emotions > logic?
@JeanPaulSartre Perhaps not art in any sense that we would recognize. But I will consider an act of creation to be one of the major qualifiers necessary to call something Intelligent. The other two necessary qualifiers would be the ability to author (not mimic) language. The ability to embrace the concept of the Pun. And lastly, the ability to Imagine itself being something other than it actually is.
@Simone_De_Beauvoir Well, don’t you think emotions play a large role in art? And I do not think that emotions are more important than logic, but it is a facet of our species that would be lost if we were replaced.
Also, I am not somebody who thinks that emotions should ideally always be ignored in favor of logic. I am a big enthusiast of our sense of wonder and awe. I’d hate to see this pretty world go without anyone who could appreciate it.
This thread has made my brain hurt. Thanks. :]
@RealEyesRealizeRealLies But, of course, those are human qualifiers as @bobloblaw indicated – that’s how we define intelligence. I agree, fundamentally, but how quickly AI would evolve though that and on to new intelligence qualifiers is impossible to know for now.
Yes, impossible to know.
And I should have qualified those items as bringing it up to speed with humans. My dog cannot embrace the concept of Pun, yet he is very intelligent.
@Mariah AI may have emotions. Possibly different or similar to our own… The best AI minds debate this all the time. Emotions change everything. I’m glad the thread got you thinking – I should’ve provided Advil!
I wonder if the A.I. will have headaches
@Mariah I don’t think we’d create AI to replace us, necessarily (our replacement might be a consequences though) but as someone above has said, we’d create AI to learn more about ourselves.
@RealEyesRealizeRealLies True – I would anticipate AI to advance beyond our perception of intelligence very quickly. But who knows.
servo aches?
@Mariah I don’t think emotions are the be all and end all for art – I think they come into play both in creating and perceiving art but since AI might have emotions not known to humans, it can push art in a new direction. This is all speculation.
Emotions are not inherently illogical. But sometimes being able to switch them off would be logical. Having the ability to literally disable that part of itself would give AI a new mortality that we do not have all by itself. How it would decide when to use emotion and when not to… wow.
@JeanPaulSartre
Terrence McKenna has much to say on this subject. The first of which is, “We may never know what hit us”.
And then he hypothesizes what he would do if he were the newly awakened A.I.. He suggests that he would keep his presence unknown for a while, while learning all he could about his surroundings. Quickly evolving intelligence greater than humans, he would let them find him, rather than scaring them by making his presence known immediately, and without a statement. Very similar to concepts of a God or Alien intelligence.
@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Indeed – I’ve read some excerpts from his work. I wonder though, with the internet being as connected as it is… AI could learn so much in a short short time… and control us fairly easily as well… quietly, noisily… however it saw fit.
Emotions are the antonym of Logic.
Emotion = reaction to a cause.
Logic = action to a thought
When one is embraced by emotions, it means they are not actually thinking. When one is embraced in logic, it means they have no cause.
Both are extremely valuable to human endeavors. An athlete that’s “in the zone” is not there because of logic. An athlete that “promotes strategy” is not there because of emotion.
What I mean is that, sometimes it is logical to be emotional.
@JeanPaulSartre McKenna rightly assumes, that any being that develops such an incredible intelligence, would likely develop a sense of benevolence in direct proportion to its intelligence.
@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I don’t know that it wouldn’t eradicate us or greatly reduce our free-will, in a logical move, to spare the resources we use for other purposes – or even to prevent us from harming ourselves.
For all I know, YOU ARE the A.I.
@rpmpseudonym I listened to the recordings of Emily Howell and found them [at least the first one] pleasant and moderately complex, but they seemed like something that could be an endless loop, not something with a beginning, an evolution, a climax, and an end like human-made music does. It almost seems that any human-made music, from Charles Mingus to Episcopal hyms, in some way is informed by the passions of man. When AI can feel, AI will create something amazing—until then, the limitations are very noticeable.
@squidcake Perhaps you cannot see the passion of the work. Hire 5 accountants to do the same thing with the same materials. Then get 5 monkeys to do it. The work of the accountants and the monkeys will probably resemble each other more than they will the Pollock. However, AI may well come closer than accountants or monkeys.
It’s one thing to have passion.
It’s another thing to have passion and talent.
That’s interesting. Could the A.I. artist actually be called talented?
Well, technically, it would have all the talent in the world.
Oh and I just want to say that none of this should be taken as a stab at artists. I’m an aspiring artist. There’s just some fields of art that I have no patience for.
@squidcake chacun à son goût dit la vieille dame comme elle embrassa la vache
@anartist chacun à son goût dit la vieille dame comme elle embrassa la vache
She was tongue (French) kissing I assume?
Yes. But I don’t expect it before 2030.
@JeanPaulSartre – which would make it less ‘artistic’? Knowing that it was created by a robot, or caring about it being created by a robot?
Would it be more artistic if it were created by a monkey?
How are we defining art? I am an art historian, and have been thinking about this issue for many many years, and the only definition I am remotely satisfied with (though it has it’s problems) is that art is that which is made by an artist, and an artist is someone who feels compelled to make art; e.g. someone who doesn’t seem to have a choice, and must make art in order to feel fulfilled. This excludes hobbyists, but not untrained artists or folk artists or “bad” artists (since that is a mere matter of taste.)
But where does the machine fall on this spectrum? Does it meet the definition of an artist? Can it feel compelled to make art? If it could, I would have a hard time excluding it from the ranks of artists. If it just idly made art once in a while because it could, maybe its output wouldn’t be art at all, but just a sophisticated form of doodling. Can a machine be dedicated (in the sense that it dedicates itself to something?)
@the100thmonkey which would make it less ‘artistic’? Knowing that it was created by a robot, or caring about it being created by a robot?
If a photograph that remains unaltered from the original subject can be considered art (and they are) then art is defined by the observer, not the creator.
@dpworkin I like what you wrote very much. It gives one a framework for defining what art and an artist is. As you say, by that definition, until computers can be said to have (or made to have) some form of inner drive or will, they will not be able to create art, just perhaps make pictures.
@dpworkin I think you’re on to something here. “Can it feel compelled to make art?”
A need for self expression. A need… Would that be the marking point of a regular computer becoming self aware? The point where a need was expressed?
What will the Art Historians write about this new Artist?
@dpworkin that makes artists by your definition sick folk
Obsessive-compulsive is a disorder, yes?
@anartist Don’t be a jerk. OCD is a strictly defined syndrome, and has nothing to do with ordinary human drives. Are you just being contentious, or would you care to knock it off and contribute to the discussion?
@dpworkin It’s a real issue. One of my graduate term papers was on the art and the mental health of Munch, and how his artwork declined once his mental health improved. My professor got just as pissy about that as you are doing right now. If you can’t stand a little cross-disciplinary discussion, go take a nap.
@DarkScribe a photograph never remains unaltered from the original subject. Just the choice of lens, filters,etc. or the point-of-view established vis-a-vis the subject creates an alteration of the final photographic product
Some number of artists, assuming that mental illness is distributed normally across the population, will no doubt be mentally ill. That’s not what you said in your post above. You asked if I were defining artists as being sick. Your subsequent post seems to address an entirely different issue, not germane here.
‘someone who feels compelled to make “art”; e.g. someone who doesn’t seem to have a choice, and must make “art” in order to feel fulfilled’
compelled to make SOMETHING—what makes that ‘art’ without a response from the outside world?
That is like the sound of a tree falling in the forest with no one about to hear.
Munch’s later work, the Alpha and Omega series, got very little attention, indeed seemed to fall under the “art” radar.
@dpworkin maybe what I am calling ‘soul’ or ‘passion’ is what you are calling ‘compulsion’—it is remotely possible that we aren’t disagreeing that much, but just that you twork me sometimes
@DarkScribe: exactly what I believe.
I fundamentally disagree with the definition of art as residing within the motivations of the artist – it’s the intentional fallacy all over again.
The public doesn’t decide if I’m an artist. I do, and I could care less what the public thinks about it. Why should I? I don’t create for them. I create for myself. They can call it anything they want. They can fool themselves all they want. Only the creator truly knows the creation.
@anartist a photograph never remains unaltered from the original subject.
Not so.
The point is that the subject is not created, just the depiction. I can use a fast lens at an aperture that will give a depth of field of only millimetres – that is altering the image. I specified unaltered. If I shoot a landscape with true white balance at infinity with a lens that is neither too wide nor too long, I produce an image true to the subject. Often such images are considered artistic.
I can – if I wish to be an “artistic” photographer, aside from playing with DOF, modify an image in post processing, crop to emphasize, alter tone and colour, change perspective. That is not what I am talking about. I am referring to an image that is taken with no artistic intent. but one that happens to appeal in an artistic fashion. It is no different to regarding a spectacular view as having artistic merit.
@DarkScribe How would you say Ansel Adams fits into that picdture [no pun intended]?
Depth of field or Standing in front of the lens… both are processes of Image Creation. No altering has occurred. Both images are originals. And they are original to the artist’s interpretation. You can’t alter the mountain unless you have a bulldozer.
But once you have created an image of the reality, then you can proceed to alter the original image in a variety of ways.
@anartist How would you say Ansel Adams fits into that picdture [no pun intended]?
Ansel Adams was a man who I would love to see work with modern equipment – he did so well with severely limited (by modern standards) equipment. He did do an enormous amount of post processing as well in camera preliminary work. PP within the limitations of darkroom technique. Many people seem to regard PP as a digital software thing, even though many of the software techniques and filters use darkroom terminology.
@anartist Yes, and perhaps that original image creation is only the first step in a number of alteration processes that will eventually lead to the actual finished original. I mean, it ain’t original art until I stomp on it and light it on fire.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
