news.artnet.com: “There is a battle rising between humans and machines.”
No, that’s not a voiceover from another Matrix or Terminator movie. That’s the first line of a new study on how humans perceive artworks made by computers versus those made by humans, and, according to the findings, published in the journal Empirical Studies in the Arts, things don’t look great for the humans.
8 comments:
Well, this is scary! I think the magic of art is all because of an artist. Any artist has a specific voice, and it shows through to the work. All of my favorite artists have a specific voice, a specific niche, and that’s why I love them so much. The fact that a computer can replicate art well enough to dupe people into thinking it has a “voice”... well, what does that say about how similar humans and robots are?
I am fairly against the concept of robots and a general mindset. I don’t really like the idea of a “robot rebellion,” and honestly, at this rate, it doesn’t feel nearly as much of a fantasy and it should be. Wall-E was more scary to me than comedic, because the humans in floating pods felt like a reality that was too close to comfort and too scary to face.
Art should be something that should never be replicated by an inanimate object! I hope whoever created this technology regrets it. :(
I personally don't find this study concerning at all. Rather I think it's interesting and a testament to the programmer that created the AI that they were able to make such a sophisticated piece of software that it could mimic a form of human expression almost imperceptibly. While I understand that art is about the meaning and the soul it is also about the eyes and the experience of viewing it. If we can create machines that can synthesize something as complex as art that evokes meaningful emotion how can we see that as something worrying and not an incredible feat of engineering? I find it fascinating that the person who developed it was able to teach this AI to understand the patterns and images and colors and how they work together. I'm not saying this is a step in the right or wrong direction for art, but it is a step forward for the field of artificial intelligence. And just a question, is the soul of the programmer not in the work which it taught the AI to create through their own understanding of art?
The standard question about what is art comes to mind. Art is what you make it to be and what we certainly learned in basic design class is; no matter what you attempted to say, the message is boiled down to however the audience perceives it. This study seems less than scientific, but it is important to see how humans and AI views what art is. Art in the classical sense also can have arbitrarily increased or decreased value based on seemingly random things. It would seem to me that the cost of a painting per se, would be based on the number of work hours logged on the project. Of course that is not how high-end or even any-end art is really priced. It’s also scary because it does put artists out of work because you could generate a million paintings for free with AI and not spend any money on paint.
The title (and content) of this article was really shocking. As it is discussed at the end of the article as well, I’ve always thought that one of the major traits that distinguishes artificial intelligences from humans is the creativity, or the ability to create an “art.” I personally do not really support the whole AI concept. I know it is a huge trend within every field, but I think what artificial intelligence produces and offers should be the supplementary benefits for human’s lives, not necessarily the products that could compete against humans. I do not understand why people are eager to produce their own potential enemies; there are so many issues related to unemployments and job losses, and it was not delightful at all to read about the articles discussing how robots could somehow replace the artists (jobs that I believed and still think that could never be replaced by robots).
This study is so interesting to me because I’m almost certain if I participated in it I wouldn’t be able to tell them apart. There are so many different styles and techniques to create art. I wouldn’t be able to confidently tell you “oh that totally looks like it was done by artificial intelligence” especially if it was designed to create pieces indiscernible from human pieces of art.
The one question that kept popping in my head as I read the article was, does the person who created the AI count as the artist? Someone had to create the machine and tell it what to do. Can an AI just be another tool to create art? And if not where is the line? I truly don’t know how I feel about the creation of AI art. A part of me is somewhat sad because art is something so human, the sole purpose is not just to produce it. It means something to the artist and the audience.
This article reminded me of a video I watched on YouTube where older people could not tell that a computer-generated avatar was not a real person. To me, growing up with video games and technology, the differences seem obvious even if the avatar is hyper-realistic; however, people who are clearly unfamiliar with the medium had a much more difficult time figuring it out. I am wondering if it would be the same for these AI-generated art pieces, as the image presented at the beginning of the article is pretty obviously generated by a computer to me. It could be that the images presented in the survey were much more convincing, but this article just made me think about how we were the first generation to grow up alongside prominent pieces of technology like smartphones and the modern internet, and how that may make us more versed in this medium. It also makes me wonder about the younger generation, as they might be even more perceptive than us.
This is quite a frightening subject! As AI is taking over many different fields of human life, I always thought art was the one that couldn't be manufactured. The article talks about how it is discerning how art is something that people pour their souls into, and shouldn't viewers be moved by this meaning, and if people are being moved by these manufactured AI paintings? This is scary to me as if people cannot differentiate between an AI and human created painting, I would think that people can make a meaning out of anything. Especially when seeing a piece of work, the human mind tends to wander and look for a meaning. However, I wonder how this survey would change if people were seeing the AI photos in person. I think there is a sense of imperfection that humans can capture in their strokes and the entire piece that gives it so much soul and meaning.
This is so cool! Personally, I’m not super worried about robots taking our jobs as designers or artists. In fact, I think our field might be one of the only ones that is safe. While I’m sure some people are frightened by this AI being able to create human-like works, I really don't see the harm. I think it's an interesting new medium for some artists to explore, but I definitely don't think it will ever be putting anyone out of a job. Art is all about the thought and meaning the artist embedded in it. No matter how hard a robot tries, it will never be able to conjure up the profound symbolism and thought every artist puts into their work. I think all this is a very cool exploration by an artist into the boundaries between a medium and a creator and the processes of creation and the art itself.
Post a Comment