So far, AI doesn't identify creative problems or possess the impulse to express itself. Nor does it explore, play, or innovate of its own accord. — praxis

When it makes art in its spare time, without a prompt, we'll be able to ask it why.

One person viewing a pretty sunset is like :starstruck: — praxis

Two people viewing that same sunset is more like :starstruck: :starstruck: :hearts: Which is why my SO immediately calls me when he notices something remarkable or funny or beautiful.

That seems like a pretty short-sighted view. I can't imagine there won't be significant advancements in the near future. AI as a real thing has only really been out in public for a year or so. — T Clark

It would be a short sighted view if I said it in early 2022 when alot of the immediate advancements were made in AI art on a monthly basis as people explored what technologies like DALLE-2 can do. The better part of a year has passed since then and it doesn't seem like the exponential growth of the past year has carried over which suggests that we've reached a limit to what current AI image generative technologies can do. Even if we can get Midjourney to produce proper hands more often, it's never truly "taught" how to depict them properly every time, and my suspicion is that the same is gonna be involved with text generation (as some of the ones I've tested out mess it up a good portion of the time).

Now of course I'm not saying that some significant advancement will certainly not come soon. We can never accurately predict technological progress and when it will come. However it seems like that would involve some sort of breakthrough in the technology itself, and isn't just a matter of feeding models more data like we've been doing. As for when that breakthrough will come it's not really clear but I don't expect it to come in the near term.

One person viewing a pretty sunset is like :starstruck: — praxis

You're right. I should have said "artistic experience."

until there is some work to do clearing up and fixing things. — unenlightened

Robots can do that too.

That's a whole other issue. Since retirement, I have had time for creative endeavours that I only dreamed of while I had a family and a full time job. We might all be much happier, tinkering and inventing, exploring and foraging, painting and composing, volunteering and teaching, if it didn't have to be done either on top of a job or as a job. — Vera Mont

Yes, retirement is wonderful. I'm as happy as I've ever been. Yesterday I was talking to a friend with his two children, 4 and 2, standing there. I suggested he retire too, but he felt he should continue to feed his kids.

Now of course I'm not saying that some significant advancement will certainly not come soon. — Mr Bee

We live in interesting times, for better or worse.

I agree with what Angelo Cannata wrote - "The essence of art is human inner experience that is communicated." It's communication from one person to another. What happens when there is no actual experience being communicated? — T Clark

Not sure I can agree with that. Wouldnt that mean that getting a different experience from what the artist is communicating is impossible? That is, if art is only communicating experience of the artist then when someone gets a different experience (a different emotion for example) then we couldn't call it art.
Also, an AI may not have an intent like a human but they can still make art intended to provoke an experience. For example if you ask it to draw something scary it will reference what images scare humans and generate an image based on that. I would argue that there is no real difference other than where the “experience” is coming from. Again, I think if you cannot tell the difference in a blind test between AI art and human art then you can’t rationally say something is missing from the AI generated image.
Also, “communication” might not be the right word. That implies a two way exchange in my mind. Isnt art more provoking a response than communicating something?

My apologies for misinterpreting your post.

Not sure I can agree with that. Wouldnt that mean that getting a different experience from what the artist is communicating is impossible? That is, if art is only communicating experience of the artist then when someone gets a different experience (a different emotion for example) then we couldn't call it art. — DingoJones

No, it would mean that art is subject to misjudgment and misunderstanding just like all other type of human communication.

Also, “communication” might not be the right word. That implies a two way exchange in my mind. Isnt art more provoking a response than communicating something? — DingoJones

Communication can be and often is a back and forth between people, but it doesn't have to be and often isn't. The user's manual for my new CO meter is a one way communication unless I have questions and contact the customer service line.

No, it would mean that art is subject to misjudgment and misunderstanding just like all other type of human communication. — T Clark

Ok, but then you are saying getting something from art not intended (communicated) by the artist is essentially incorrect.
“Your doing it wrong! Its a happy painting not a calm one you fool!”
This is a very restrictive way to define art isn't it? Im not saying thats bad, just clarifying.

Communication can be and often is a back and forth between people, but it doesn't have to be and often isn't. The user's manual for my new CO meter is a one way communication unless I have questions and contact the customer service line. — T Clark

Fair enough, I retract my suggestion.

Wouldnt that mean that getting a different experience from what the artist is communicating is impossible? That is, if art is only communicating experience of the artist then when someone gets a different experience (a different emotion for example) then we couldn't call it art. — DingoJones

Actually I agree with Gadamer's idea that, in interpreting something, there isn't much point in looking for the intention of the author. Once it has been produced, a work of art gains a state autonomous from its author. So, I think it is even legitimate to criticize the author's interpretation of their own work and disagree with them. But this does not mean that the author and their intention are just negligible. I still think that reference to the author’s intention is the best criterion, provided that we are aware that actually it is impossible to reach and that even the author might not be the one who has the best awareness about their own intention. I would add, also, a reference to the "hermeneutic circle": when I interpret art, I am also interpreted by it.

I suggested he retire too, but he felt he should continue to feed his kids. — T Clark

I'm glad we adopted ours when we were in our thirties, not our sixties.

Substitute "convey something" for communicate. If the original message is lost in transit and is replaced by something equally valued, there has still been a connection. I don't interrogate Van Gogh every time my spirits are lifted by sunflowers; I don't take Yeats to task each time I read a poem. Something of them passes to me, by however indirect a route, that simply doesn't happen with computer generated art; those images never get past my eyeballs.

There is truth in that, but I'm not sure I would say much different about most of the human-produced graphics I've seen. — T Clark

Right, and I think that is because most of the human stuff is also just robotically imitative.

Ok, but then you are saying getting something from art not intended (communicated) by the artist is essentially incorrect.
“Your doing it wrong! Its a happy painting not a calm one you fool!”
This is a very restrictive way to define art isn't it? Im not saying thats bad, just clarifying. — DingoJones

If I were the artist, I guess I would say I had failed to get my point across to that particular person. Again, that happens all the time with communication. If I write a post here on the forum and you don't understand what I'm trying to say, I'll go back and look to see if I could have been clearer. If no one seems to understand, I've probably done a bad job.

I'm glad we adopted ours when we were in our thirties, not our sixties. — Vera Mont

Yes. My brother had his children when he was in his late 50s. I love my nieces, but the idea of raising kids at this time of my life is daunting. He always really wanted kids. I certainly can understand that.

Substitute "convey something" for communicate. — Vera Mont

I have no objection to saying it that way.

Is there a difference between ordinary communication and art ? By some criteria a well articulated piece of writing done so with flare can be artistic in a sense it all depends on how touched or moved the person receiving such a communication is by it that makes it art rather than just another informative blurb of text.

Is there a difference between ordinary communication and art ? By some criteria a well articulated piece of writing done so with flare can be artistic in a sense it all depends on how touched or moved the person receiving such a communication is by it that makes it art rather than just another informative blurb of text. — simplyG

I've thought about that. I think there is a difference, at least by convention. On the other hand, it seems like communicating ideas is conveying experience, an intellectual one.

You wait until AI and VR hook up, allowing you to virtually visit any mind- or machine-created realityscape that can be dreamed of. (Why am I inclined to doubt that the 'no pornography' firewall will break down pretty quickly. Glad I'm old. :wink: )

Incidentally, I paid 10 bucks for a bunch of computer-enhanced avatars of yours truly, at least some of which came out looking a lot better than, ahem, I actually do, I'm even using some of them:


I've been using ChatGPT daily since it came out. It's been amazingly helpful with drafting and research. It really is like interacting with a knowledgeable academic tutor. The actual prose suggestions it offers are often a bit lame, but it's really good at critique, suggestions, structure, etc.

We live in interesting times, for better or worse. — T Clark

Indeed, but I'm just trying to hold on to whatever bit of realism is left nowadays.

You wait until AI and VR hook up, allowing you to virtually visit any mind- or machine-created realityscape that can be dreamed of. (Why am I inclined to doubt that the 'no pornography' firewall will break down pretty quickly. Glad I'm old. :wink: — Wayfarer

Pornography or not, I wouldn't mind hanging around long enough to take a look. They'd better get cracking though.

Art has been created by nonhuman intelligence for decades (if not centuries). Our local zoo has sold art created by elephants for quite some time. In this scenario, the elephant acts as a "tool" of the "artist", who is the human who set up the scenario. No different from the "artist" who sets up the 3D printer or the AI.

Art has been created by nonhuman intelligence for decades (if not centuries). Our local zoo has sold art created by elephants for quite some time. In this scenario, the elephant acts as a "tool" of the "artist", who is the human who set up the scenario. No different from the "artist" who sets up the 3D printer or the AI. — LuckyR

I don't think visual artists are worried much about elephants stealing their jobs or taking over their niche in the aesthetic ecology.

I don't think visual artists are worried much about elephants stealing their jobs or taking over their niche in the aesthetic ecology.

I agree about the worries of individuals, though that is fodder for the Economics Forum.

The concepts I outlined are valid, though (here in the Philosophy Forum).

I don't interrogate Van Gogh every time my spirits are lifted by sunflowers; I don't take Yeats to task each time I read a poem. Something of them passes to me, by however indirect a route, that simply doesn't happen with computer generated art; those images never get past my eyeballs. — Vera Mont

I looked up the expression 'get past my eyeballs' and apparently it has something to do with vitreous detachment and floaters. I didn't know AI had that effect. Anyway, just for fun I wanted to see how Midjourney might forge some Van Gogh sunflowers. Some renderings were much closer but the following is interesting. Looks like impasto painting over a 3D sculpture.

Click the reveal button at your own risk of eye damage.

the following is interesting. — praxis

[smart-ass remark]Yes, it's clearly a much better version than all those slapdash ones Van Gogh did. He just didn't seem to be able to get it right. [/smart-ass remark]

I said it was interesting. I didn't say it was better or that I even liked it. It's mildly interesting in how it kind of lost the plot and confused the 3d impasto technique with the still-life elements.

Should I have expressed fear and loathing to be more in the cool kid camp? :snicker:

I said it was interesting. — praxis

It held my interest for a full minute, because I wondered how the computer got the idea of a collage. It's pretty.

I said it was interesting. I didn't say it was better or that I even liked it. It's mildly interesting in how it kind of lost the plot and confused the 3d impasto technique with the still-life elements.

Should I have expressed fear and loathing to be more in the cool kid camp? :snicker: — praxis

Sorry, it was intended as a smart-ass remark. I've edited the post to clarify.

I said it was interesting. I didn't say it was better or that I even liked it. It's mildly interesting in how it kind of lost the plot and confused the 3d impasto technique with the still-life elements.

Should I have expressed fear and loathing to be more in the cool kid camp? :snicker: — praxis

To clarify further, as I noted, it's fun to mess around with this. I can see how a real artist would enjoy it. I enjoy messing with Chat GPT writing.