Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Haxion's avatar

I really like this essay, and I think your point about originality is good. But I’d have two things to add in support of AI art not really being art: first, as you say, getting that last percentage is the hard part. But it’s important to say _why_ it’s so hard: the real innovation in many works of art (broadly defined, including writing and music and so on) is in the subtle ways they break accepted rules and subvert expectations. Definitionally, that’s pretty hard to engineer into something that is essentially a giant interpolation engine that deviates from maximum likelihood based on local statistical fluctuations, particularly since most such violations just read as weird and dumb to the viewer. Second, intentionality matters at least to my mind because it’s a source of human connection across time and distance, e.g. David Foster Wallace died years ago but I can feel his pain and wonder and neuroses when I read infinite jest. Or even in this piece, I read it and wonder about the thought process behind each paragraph and clever turn of phrase. LLMs are lousy for writing long documents as they start to lose the thread after a while, but even once that’s eventually solved, I’d have no interest in reading an LLMs novel no matter how technically skillful. There’s an emptiness there that nothing short of machine consciousness can remedy, and we are nowhere near that (if it’s even possible).

Expand full comment
Khashayar's avatar

Ironically enough, your same points have been made before by Margaret Boden with the concept of the “superhuman human fallacy”—which posits that the inclination to dismiss AI's creativity because its outputs don't always reach the peak of human creativity overlooks the fact that most humans rarely reach those heights themselves. But to echo your sentiments, I don't think it'll be impossible to find a direct or indirect precursor to Boden's fallacy either.

I personally really resonate with Ben Davis's analysis of AI art in his book "Art in the After-Culture". He touches on a lot of historical currents and the political economy of artistic creation but the one undercurrent that continues to frame my view is that at the end of the day, it's not really about "what art is" but it's about "what we want artists to be".

The "artist" identify is itself constructed and retroactively applied to individuals from our past and through this process of social construction, we have and continue to redefine the identity. AI art threatens that definition more than anything else.

Ben Davis argues that "AI aesthetics" are inherently "prosumer". If I as a consumer want to hear a song that sounds like if Bob Dylan sang for the Beatles, the logic of AI art makes that possible and desirable for me. If I want a novel written based on my own life's events and written in the style of my favourite author, then so be it!

In those examples, the quality and originality of the art object is irrelevant. What is relevant is the power shift they represent. In that future, the "artist" identity could become "producer of art objects that cater to consumer preference" instead of what we currently valorize, which is something along the lines of "someone who reframes our world through their perspective".

Like Hito Steyerl alludes to in her essay "Mean Images", the verb "training" is occurring before and after the creation of the AI output: the training first applies to the AI and then it is applied by the AI after the object is produced. What is important to me is to what extent we allow the logic of AI aesthetics to "train" us into redefining what we want artists to do for us socially.

Expand full comment
61 more comments...

No posts