4 ms·

> Indeed. The fallacy here is assuming that if a computer can create works that humans cannot distinguish from those created by other humans, then that computer

> Indeed. The fallacy here is assuming that if a computer can create works that humans cannot distinguish from those created by other humans, then that computer is creating art. But art is inseparable from the artist. I hope you and the parent comment are correct, but this argument seems a little facile. There is some art that I like because there is a story that connects the art to the artist. But there are also novels that I have enjoyed simply because they tell a great story and I know nothing about the author. There are paintings and photos that I like simply because they seem beautiful to me and I know nothing about any suffering that went into their creation. Does that make these works "not art"? If so, then I'm not sure what the difference is, and I'm not sure most people will care about the distinction.

p-e-w 4y ago
Do the experiment: Take one of those novels for which you think you don't care who wrote it. Now imagine you found out that novel was actually generated by a computer program. It's the same text, but you now know that there is no human behind it, just an algorithm. Would that make a difference for how you view the story? It certainly would to me. If it makes even a tiny difference to you as well, it demonstrates that you do care about the artist, even in cases where you don't notice it under normal circumstances.
- PurpleRamen 4y ago
  You don't even need an algorithm, just research what the human authors say about their work and specific points which the reader values high in them. Quite often you will figure out that it's just random s** they wrote together to get something done, without any deeper meaning. But people make up some meaning because that how it works for them, makes it better. The art is on the perception, not the intention. Though, if they overlap, it's more satisfying.
  - p-e-w 4y ago
    Human creative works are art not because they have "deeper meaning", but because they reflect the humanity of their creators. Whether an author writes a multi-layered novel built around a complex philosophical idea, or just light reading for entertainment, has no impact on that fundamental essence which makes art what it is. Not all art is great, but all art is human.
    - CuriouslyC 4y ago
      That's a tautology. Human creative works by definition reflect the humanity of their creators. AI creative works reflect the humanity of its training set, which eventually may be indistinguishable. As for all art being human, there are a lot of birds who make art to attract a mate in nature, and at least one captive elephant that can paint.
      - freejazz 4y ago
        Rolling around in dogshit doesn't make me a dog. Same if I eat it.
- busyant 4y ago
  You made me think about this a little more, but I still don't quite agree. I thought of two novels that I enjoyed: First, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime. I have no recollection of who the author is, but if I learned that the story had been computer generated, it would bother me a little. So... "point to you." Second, Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption. I know it was written by Stephen King, but the plot is so elegant that if you told me it had been computer generated, I don't think I would care. It's simply a great enjoyable story. In the next 10 years, if the world is flooded with computer-generated novels that are hugely popular and the vast majority of people enjoy them without knowing their provenance, do you think those people will care that they are enjoying something that doesn't meet your definition of art? edit: to be clear, this is not a position that I enjoy taking. There's something "Brave New Worldish" about it. Or it's a depressing version of the Turing Test.
- Kiro 4y ago
  Not at all. More concretely, if we do the same experiment on music: I have no clue who made most of the music I listen to. The artist means nothing to me.
  - slowmovintarget 4y ago
    That makes you part of the precipitate.
    - Kiro 4y ago
      What do you mean?
  - dagw 4y ago
    The artist means nothing to me. Honest question. If the artist means nothing to you, do you still judge their work as art, or do you consider music more as entertainment?
- danwee 4y ago
  I read novels I don't give a damn about the author (in fact I usually remember the title of the novels, and their story... but not the author). So, a robot making amazing stories to read? I'm in. I realized, it's the same about music. I like songs, but then I don't really know very well the bands/authors (nor care about them).
  - slowmovintarget 4y ago
    That's not how things used to be. Some of my younger colleagues can't even tell me the name of what they're listening to, because they only encountered it in passing and can't say "Oh yes, that song by Bill Withers is amazing..." because they just listened to it as background.
    - dagw 4y ago
      That's not how things used to be. Some people approach movies/music/books etc. as entertainment and some people approach them as Art. Neither is right or wrong, but it does fundamentally affect how you consume and judge them. A lot of the reasons people talk past each other in these discussions is that they have rather different 'use cases' for movies/music/books. If you consider music and books as entertainment then it makes no difference how it's produced as long as it entertains. If you consider them art then it makes a much bigger difference.
- cool_dude85 4y ago
  Reminds me a bit of the Jorge Luis Borges short story on the author trying to re-write, word for word, Don Quixote, and whether that would be a greater artistic achievement even than the original. After all, Cervantes lived in those times, but the modern author would have to invent (or re-capture) the historical details, idioms, customs, language, and characters that are very much of the times. I think, from Borges' perspective, it's supposed to be an interesting satire. Obviously there would not be an original word in the new Don Quixote, so how could it be a greater achievement than the "real" one?
- namarie 4y ago
  Honestly I think that would make me more interested in the story, not less.
techno_tsar 4y ago
This reminds me of the concept of semantic internalism vs. externalism, which most comments here seem to be misunderstanding. Most of the critiques of the view that AI art is still meaningful is based on either a hypothesis or empirical testimony of being moved by art without knowledge of the artists. Thus, because the artwork was causally responsible for engineering a mental state of aesthetic satisfaction, the artwork qualifies as being a piece of art. If that is the crux of the discussion then the conclusion is trivial. However, I think the AI art as pseudoart view is trying to make a statement on the external (i.e. ‘real world’) status of the artwork, regardless of whether viewers experience the (internal) mental state of aesthetic satisfaction. The line of thinking is that there is a difference between semantics (actual aboutness) and syntax (mere structure). The classic example is watching a colony of ants crawl in the sand, and noticing that their trails have created an image that resembles Winston Churchill. Have the ants actually drawn Winston Churchill? The intuition for externalists is no. A more illustrative example is a concussed non-Japanese person muttering syllables that are identical to an actual, grammatically correct and appropriate Japanese sentence. Has the person actually spoken Japanese? The intuition for externalists is that they have not. Not everyone is in agreement about this, although surveys have shown that most people agree with the externalist point of view, that meaningfulness does not just come from the head of the observer — the speaker creates meaning since meaning comes from aboutness (semantics). The most famous argument for semantic externalism was put forward by Hillary Putnam, I think, in the 60s. Roughly, on a hypothetical Twin Earth which was qualitatively identical to Earth, except which water was not composed of H2O but some other substance XYZ, an earthlings visit to Twin Earth and looking at a pool of what appears to be qualitatively identical to water on earth and stating “That’s water” is false, since the meaning of water (in our language) is H2O, not XYZ. To externalists, the meaning of water = H2O is a truth even before we’ve discovered that water = H2O. I think the argument for AI art being pseudoart follows a similar line of thinking. Even though the AI produces, say, qualitatively indistinguishable text from what would be composed by a great novelist, the artwork itself is still meaningless since meaning is “about” things. The AI, lacking embodiment, and actual contact with the objects in its writing, or involvement in the linguistic or cultural community that has named certain iconography, could never make (externally) truly meaningful statements, and thus “meaningful” art, even if (internally) one is moved by it. If one is to maintain the internalist position, that any entity that creates aesthetic mental states qualifies as art, then it seems trivial, since literally anyone can find anything aesthetic. Externalist intuition effectively raises the stakes for what we consider art, not necessarily as a privileged status available only to human creations, but by arguing that meaning, and perhaps beauty, does not only exist when we experience it.
skor 4y ago
I think this example you present places you as a “simple spectator”, we generally observe and tend to like or dislike experiences by some subliminal connections we already possess (given experience). However, when something really interests a human, the natural reaction is to try find out more about the origins.

p-e-w 4y ago

Do the experiment: Take one of those novels for which you think you don't care who wrote it. Now imagine you found out that novel was actually generated by a computer program. It's the same text, but you now know that there is no human behind it, just an algorithm. Would that make a difference for how you view the story? It certainly would to me. If it makes even a tiny difference to you as well, it demonstrates that you do care about the artist, even in cases where you don't notice it under normal circumstances.

PurpleRamen 4y ago
You don't even need an algorithm, just research what the human authors say about their work and specific points which the reader values high in them. Quite often you will figure out that it's just random s** they wrote together to get something done, without any deeper meaning. But people make up some meaning because that how it works for them, makes it better. The art is on the perception, not the intention. Though, if they overlap, it's more satisfying.
- p-e-w 4y ago
  Human creative works are art not because they have "deeper meaning", but because they reflect the humanity of their creators. Whether an author writes a multi-layered novel built around a complex philosophical idea, or just light reading for entertainment, has no impact on that fundamental essence which makes art what it is. Not all art is great, but all art is human.
  - CuriouslyC 4y ago
    That's a tautology. Human creative works by definition reflect the humanity of their creators. AI creative works reflect the humanity of its training set, which eventually may be indistinguishable. As for all art being human, there are a lot of birds who make art to attract a mate in nature, and at least one captive elephant that can paint.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      Rolling around in dogshit doesn't make me a dog. Same if I eat it.
busyant 4y ago
You made me think about this a little more, but I still don't quite agree. I thought of two novels that I enjoyed: First, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime. I have no recollection of who the author is, but if I learned that the story had been computer generated, it would bother me a little. So... "point to you." Second, Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption. I know it was written by Stephen King, but the plot is so elegant that if you told me it had been computer generated, I don't think I would care. It's simply a great enjoyable story. In the next 10 years, if the world is flooded with computer-generated novels that are hugely popular and the vast majority of people enjoy them without knowing their provenance, do you think those people will care that they are enjoying something that doesn't meet your definition of art? edit: to be clear, this is not a position that I enjoy taking. There's something "Brave New Worldish" about it. Or it's a depressing version of the Turing Test.
Kiro 4y ago
Not at all. More concretely, if we do the same experiment on music: I have no clue who made most of the music I listen to. The artist means nothing to me.
- slowmovintarget 4y ago
  That makes you part of the precipitate.
  - Kiro 4y ago
    What do you mean?
- dagw 4y ago
  The artist means nothing to me. Honest question. If the artist means nothing to you, do you still judge their work as art, or do you consider music more as entertainment?
danwee 4y ago
I read novels I don't give a damn about the author (in fact I usually remember the title of the novels, and their story... but not the author). So, a robot making amazing stories to read? I'm in. I realized, it's the same about music. I like songs, but then I don't really know very well the bands/authors (nor care about them).
- slowmovintarget 4y ago
  That's not how things used to be. Some of my younger colleagues can't even tell me the name of what they're listening to, because they only encountered it in passing and can't say "Oh yes, that song by Bill Withers is amazing..." because they just listened to it as background.
  - dagw 4y ago
    That's not how things used to be. Some people approach movies/music/books etc. as entertainment and some people approach them as Art. Neither is right or wrong, but it does fundamentally affect how you consume and judge them. A lot of the reasons people talk past each other in these discussions is that they have rather different 'use cases' for movies/music/books. If you consider music and books as entertainment then it makes no difference how it's produced as long as it entertains. If you consider them art then it makes a much bigger difference.
cool_dude85 4y ago
Reminds me a bit of the Jorge Luis Borges short story on the author trying to re-write, word for word, Don Quixote, and whether that would be a greater artistic achievement even than the original. After all, Cervantes lived in those times, but the modern author would have to invent (or re-capture) the historical details, idioms, customs, language, and characters that are very much of the times. I think, from Borges' perspective, it's supposed to be an interesting satire. Obviously there would not be an original word in the new Don Quixote, so how could it be a greater achievement than the "real" one?
namarie 4y ago
Honestly I think that would make me more interested in the story, not less.

techno_tsar 4y ago

This reminds me of the concept of semantic internalism vs. externalism, which most comments here seem to be misunderstanding. Most of the critiques of the view that AI art is still meaningful is based on either a hypothesis or empirical testimony of being moved by art without knowledge of the artists. Thus, because the artwork was causally responsible for engineering a mental state of aesthetic satisfaction, the artwork qualifies as being a piece of art. If that is the crux of the discussion then the conclusion is trivial. However, I think the AI art as pseudoart view is trying to make a statement on the external (i.e. ‘real world’) status of the artwork, regardless of whether viewers experience the (internal) mental state of aesthetic satisfaction. The line of thinking is that there is a difference between semantics (actual aboutness) and syntax (mere structure). The classic example is watching a colony of ants crawl in the sand, and noticing that their trails have created an image that resembles Winston Churchill. Have the ants actually drawn Winston Churchill? The intuition for externalists is no. A more illustrative example is a concussed non-Japanese person muttering syllables that are identical to an actual, grammatically correct and appropriate Japanese sentence. Has the person actually spoken Japanese? The intuition for externalists is that they have not. Not everyone is in agreement about this, although surveys have shown that most people agree with the externalist point of view, that meaningfulness does not just come from the head of the observer — the speaker creates meaning since meaning comes from aboutness (semantics). The most famous argument for semantic externalism was put forward by Hillary Putnam, I think, in the 60s. Roughly, on a hypothetical Twin Earth which was qualitatively identical to Earth, except which water was not composed of H2O but some other substance XYZ, an earthlings visit to Twin Earth and looking at a pool of what appears to be qualitatively identical to water on earth and stating “That’s water” is false, since the meaning of water (in our language) is H2O, not XYZ. To externalists, the meaning of water = H2O is a truth even before we’ve discovered that water = H2O. I think the argument for AI art being pseudoart follows a similar line of thinking. Even though the AI produces, say, qualitatively indistinguishable text from what would be composed by a great novelist, the artwork itself is still meaningless since meaning is “about” things. The AI, lacking embodiment, and actual contact with the objects in its writing, or involvement in the linguistic or cultural community that has named certain iconography, could never make (externally) truly meaningful statements, and thus “meaningful” art, even if (internally) one is moved by it. If one is to maintain the internalist position, that any entity that creates aesthetic mental states qualifies as art, then it seems trivial, since literally anyone can find anything aesthetic. Externalist intuition effectively raises the stakes for what we consider art, not necessarily as a privileged status available only to human creations, but by arguing that meaning, and perhaps beauty, does not only exist when we experience it.

skor 4y ago

I think this example you present places you as a “simple spectator”, we generally observe and tend to like or dislike experiences by some subliminal connections we already possess (given experience). However, when something really interests a human, the natural reaction is to try find out more about the origins.