4 ms·
Well that’s the key word isn’t it, “meaningful”? I think what makes art interesting is the story behind it, the statement the artist is trying to make. Art made
by thinkpad20 9y ago
Well that’s the key word isn’t it, “meaningful”? I think what makes art interesting is the story behind it, the statement the artist is trying to make. Art made by a machine is simply following an algorithm. I can find the process itself interesting from an academic point of view, but I’d find it difficult to call it “meaningful.” AI has no idea what kind of art it’s generating, no way to discern what is beautiful or not, no understanding of its effect on the viewer, no story to tell, no emotional backdrop. This doesn’t mean the end product can’t be beautiful, but meaningful? Eh.
- oceanghost 9y agoPrecisely.
- AstralStorm 9y agoActually the GAN systems do have a way to check if art is beautiful. This is why they can produce novel results via experiments. So yeah, such system have a sliver of an idea of what they're creating. The problem is not in discrimination at all, but in generation of novel and correct output. (grammatically and syntactically) Discerning correct syntax and grammar has eluded all AI so far. (Even specialized translation systems are worse than babies at it.)
- thinkpad20 9y agoI was speaking more about the concept of art from a philosophical point of view. I don’t see how a machine can “check” if a work of art is beautiful, a necessarily subjective and human process. Certainly given detailed enough criteria an algorithm might be able to predict whether a viewer might be likely to think a work of art is beautiful, but the criteria themselves are implicitly or explicitly derived from humans — computers have no inherent sense of beauty. The whole idea of using the terms “correct” and “check” with things like art seems flawed out of the gate.