Jump to content

Can AI be creative?


PaulaJedi
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here and there I read about AI artists.

 

DEBATE: Do they simply mimic and copy other works of art and photos based on their programming, or are can they be creative?

 

"If an AI lacks the self-awareness to reflect on its actions and experiences, and to communicate its creative intent, then is it truly creative? Or is the creativity still with the author who fed it data and directed it to act?"

 

On one hand, we humans refer to images in our brains when making art, and so does AI, but does the lack of emotion make it a programmed response rather than creative, unique art? AI is not self aware. What are your thoughts?

 

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/artificial-intelligence-ai-creativity-art-computer-program

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this part is important:

He equipped it with basic rules for painting and for how body parts are represented in portraiture

 

He programmed a "what", but not a "who" or "why". The PROGRAMMER is the one displaying creativity in his implementation of the solution being presented. It is not the computer producing the art, but the programmer. Those dominos didn't arrange themselves.

 

It's easy to define what something is; you can do that in an Excel sheet. What something MEANS is subjective and requires context relative to the observer. Is my Epson an author because I printed a story I wrote beforehand? I know that's a simplistic comparison, and a much better example is probably readily apparent, but you get the idea ;)

 

Great topic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this part is important:

 

 

He programmed a "what", but not a "who" or "why". The PROGRAMMER is the one displaying creativity in his implementation of the solution being presented. It is not the computer producing the art, but the programmer. Those dominos didn't arrange themselves.

 

It's easy to define what something is; you can do that in an Excel sheet. What something MEANS is subjective and requires context relative to the observer. Is my Epson an author because I printed a story I wrote beforehand? I know that's a simplistic comparison, and a much better example is probably readily apparent, but you get the idea ;)

 

Great topic.

 

But they do imply that some sort of randomness is happening. So, unless the programmer specifically told it to draw a building in a very specific way, the computer is sort of making random decisions itself. It knows the basic guidelines, like we do, but it comes out sort of abstract, I guess you could say.

 

Your Epson would be an artist if it decided to make the text red and add emojis. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Input a phone number into the calculator - Turn phone calculator sideways, input the first six digits then a decimal point. Next multiply by 13.5 thats a fractional number times a fractional number. Write down the number that you got. Thats 999,999,999 to one and unknown to me , correct ?

Add each digit up one by one and get a two digit total. Add those two digits and get nine , 9 .

I wrote a new ebook and put it on amazon there is A.I. references in the ebook.

Please share this post with your family 749894065_CammanwasaHard-Worker.jpg.09cdd2095e1c4dc022bb92a7a908a7e1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well in case of videogame industry,corporate online Internet digital,cyber translating services for instance,as an example Google Translate not exactly(it cannot translate any sentences perfectly). Especially for instance,as an example Faceapp cannot do perfect automatic photomontages.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well in case of videogame industry,corporate online Internet digital,cyber translating services for instance,as an example Google Translate not exactly(it cannot translate any sentences perfectly). Especially for instance,as an example Faceapp cannot do perfect automatic photomontages.

But perfection has nothing to do with creativity. Art is very imperfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it depends on your definition of creativity. The real question being asked is probably "Can computers be artistically creative in the same way that humans are?" In my experience, creativity (artistic and otherwise) is both an innate ability and a learned skill. I do think that an AI could be "trained" to utilize the same creative processes and techniques that humans use. The effectiveness of the results would be entirely objective, yet likely to have a general consensus of improvement with advances in programming.

 

All the same, it only stands to reason that machine creativity can never be exactly like human creativity until one or more human brains that are seen as creative can be perfectly emulated. However, it would be possible for audiences to be more attracted to machine creativity than human creativity over time, especially when it comes to popular mass-media, since this is a subjective matter of taste. I can imagine a point where an AI-generated Pop song or even blockbuster movie outperforms its current human-created competitors. As an artist, it does hurt my heart to say that, though.

 

Even more likely in our lifetimes is the increasing use of AI as a tool in an artist's pallet. This could include AI input for painting, sculpture, other visual art, music composition, dance, performance art, film, theater, etc. There will always be those who prefer a pure, human, "analog" artistic experience. These days, many albums with vocals are produced with a note/ disclaimer to the effect of "Auto-tune was not used during the making of these recordings" as a sign of artistic purity and being "real". Perhaps much future are will note "No AI was used to create this work", "AI free", or AI behind a 🚫 symbol.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it depends on your definition of creativity. The real question being asked is probably "Can computers be artistically creative in the same way that humans are?" In my experience, creativity (artistic and otherwise) is both an innate ability and a learned skill. I do think that an AI could be "trained" to utilize the same creative processes and techniques that humans use. The effectiveness of the results would be entirely objective, yet likely to have a general consensus of improvement with advances in programming.

 

All the same, it only stands to reason that machine creativity can never be exactly like human creativity until one or more human brains that are seen as creative can be perfectly emulated. However, it would be possible for audiences to be more attracted to machine creativity than human creativity over time, especially when it comes to popular mass-media, since this is a subjective matter of taste. I can imagine a point where an AI-generated Pop song or even blockbuster movie outperforms its current human-created competitors. As an artist, it does hurt my heart to say that, though.

 

Even more likely in our lifetimes is the increasing use of AI as a tool in an artist's pallet. This could include AI input for painting, sculpture, other visual art, music composition, dance, performance art, film, theater, etc. There will always be those who prefer a pure, human, "analog" artistic experience. These days, many albums with vocals are produced with a note/ disclaimer to the effect of "Auto-tune was not used during the making of these recordings" as a sign of artistic purity and being "real". Perhaps much future are will note "No AI was used to create this work", "AI free", or AI behind a 🚫 symbol.

Fantastic reply - You're much better at making the point I tried to make. The disclaimer about works of art being produced without autotune (or without AI, in the future) is an interesting point too -I can 100% see that coming.

 

There's a tool I've used before called Jasper:

https://www.jasper.ai/

 

This is an AI writing assistant that takes inputs from your content briefs, and tries to help you create content/get through the writer's block. It does this by having read 10% of the internet and basically knowing what word USUALLY comes after the aggregate of words before it. "Jasper" is not writing anything though. It helps me be creative, it's helpful in artistic pursuits, but I wouldn't consider Jasper to be creative or an artist.

 

Your idea about "created without AI" made me think of this though - Jasper has already helped produce quite a few eBooks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantastic reply - You're much better at making the point I tried to make. The disclaimer about works of art being produced without autotune (or without AI, in the future) is an interesting point too -I can 100% see that coming.

 

There's a tool I've used before called Jasper:

https://www.jasper.ai/

 

This is an AI writing assistant that takes inputs from your content briefs, and tries to help you create content/get through the writer's block. It does this by having read 10% of the internet and basically knowing what word USUALLY comes after the aggregate of words before it. "Jasper" is not writing anything though. It helps me be creative, it's helpful in artistic pursuits, but I wouldn't consider Jasper to be creative or an artist.

 

Your idea about "created without AI" made me think of this though - Jasper has already helped produce quite a few eBooks.

Wow, very interesting! Sounds like it was a useful tool. At this point, Pandora's Box has been opened and, as frightened as I am about the potential misuse of "AGI" if and when it comes to fruition, I've come to believe we have to put AI to work for good use in the meantime, along with good restraints and failsafes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I suppose it depends on your definition of creativity. The real question being asked is probably "Can computers be artistically creative in the same way that humans are?" In my experience, creativity (artistic and otherwise) is both an innate ability and a learned skill. I do think that an AI could be "trained" to utilize the same creative processes and techniques that humans use. The effectiveness of the results would be entirely objective, yet likely to have a general consensus of improvement with advances in programming.

 

All the same, it only stands to reason that machine creativity can never be exactly like human creativity until one or more human brains that are seen as creative can be perfectly emulated. However, it would be possible for audiences to be more attracted to machine creativity than human creativity over time, especially when it comes to popular mass-media, since this is a subjective matter of taste. I can imagine a point where an AI-generated Pop song or even blockbuster movie outperforms its current human-created competitors. As an artist, it does hurt my heart to say that, though.

 

Even more likely in our lifetimes is the increasing use of AI as a tool in an artist's pallet. This could include AI input for painting, sculpture, other visual art, music composition, dance, performance art, film, theater, etc. There will always be those who prefer a pure, human, "analog" artistic experience. These days, many albums with vocals are produced with a note/ disclaimer to the effect of "Auto-tune was not used during the making of these recordings" as a sign of artistic purity and being "real". Perhaps much future are will note "No AI was used to create this work", "AI free", or AI behind a 🚫 symbol.

If a computer mind is able to generate/formulate its own new 'new thought', which is totally original and requires no prompting—then it could in theory pass The Turing Test. A test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. According to its Wikipedia page, at least. There's actually an excellent movie on this called The Imitation Game—The original name of the Turing test, as it were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a computer mind is able to generate/formulate its own new 'new thought', which is totally original and requires no prompting—then it could in theory pass The Turing Test. A test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. According to its Wikipedia page, at least. There's actually an excellent movie on this called The Imitation Game—The original name of the Turing test, as it were.

The Turing Test seems suited to gauge natural conversation rather than creative processes and outputs, but perhaps it could be adapted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do believe that an AI is creative when it possesses a complicating process that takes in input and produces totally different, non-direct relevant output. That process must not contain direct commands toward the output, it needs to have the ability to pick the choice itself (even if it's just simple as random).

The more it displays its flexibility in the ability of choice-making: in gathering data, in selecting useful info, in considering what actions it should make on the inputs,..., the more its output seems more creative to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's a difference between "being creative" and "producing art".

 

When I look at art, there is a reaction/connection/relationship with whatever it is I'm looking at. An artist's painting can be art, but so can a sunset or a mountain or a random stone you found on a hike or a picture of your sleeping doggo. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

That a program can produce something we interpret as beautiful or unexpected does not also mean it is creative. A program is a series of instructions, and it will always follow the same pattern it was designed to follow. Those instructions can be incredibly complex and LOOK like creativity, but that's the point. There can be no output that was not preprogrammed by the true creative source, the programmers.

Edited by Cosmo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

someone told me about that page

appreciate your sharing it with us!

the ability to pick the choice itself (even if it's just simple as random)

Few artists admit the significant role that randomness and chance plays in the creative process. It's underestimated.

An artist's painting can be art, but so can a sunset or a mountain or a random stone you found on a hike or a picture of your sleeping doggo.

“They teach you there's a boundary line to music. But, man, there's no boundary line to art.” - Charlie Parker

There can be no output that was not preprogrammed by the true creative source, the programmers.

As our minds are biological computers, this is an argument for intelligent design.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...