(Photo: Chat GPT – Johannes Vermeer’s ‘The Milk Med’)
I do not use AI to write, either as a columnist or in any other part of my writing life. But, for many other matters, as a continuous and passionate user of the AI, I have asked occasionally and experimentally, column on the same subject, paper or blog research and writing on a topic after day, hours or weeks. I am interested in seeing how AI is compared.
Not surprisingly, AI often works a sterling – in all fields, including research, writing, rhetorical travel, tone and sound. In some cases, I suspect that AI works better than me, but I always offer my prose to my paymasters. In my mind, it will be an undisputed, unconstitutional (even exposed) and somehow to present the AI’s work as me, even with approval. In addition, I enjoy writing and handing it over, for me, will reduce the pure happiness of creating something.
Of course there is friction. Writing is a creative activity. The best authors among us have wished to enter the sacred building Art One of the things our species has created with the capital A, it seems that art is the most mystical – our search for expression and meaning.
Here is the most fire of AI/art debate. Can you ever join the club? Artist? Or is there any reason to believe the mark at the club house door “Only Man Here”?
My real interest in AI is decades, when I was a student and a jazz sex player. I wanted to play like Charlie Parker (the ultimate continuous target), but I didn’t understand why he chose his notes. The notes I chose to play were excellent, dim, and felt somewhat shameful than that. I decided to try to use AI to expose my secrets (and thus improve my game).
I finished publishing an educational article on this topic, and I never got to play like Charlie Parker. Even if I had revealed why these notes were selected by it, it was not answered how they succeeded in inventing their solus in real time – a very different question. Accidentally, Parker’s Solos confront the story that the AI ​​is “very fast” to be really creative, or that great art needs time. Clearly, not always.
My experience goes to the heart of AI/Art question: Can AI get numerous examples of great art to combine them in a novel and get dynamic and, well, artisticly, a lot of information?
Consider the following example. You are driving a car at night and a piece of music is played on the radio – let’s say a violin concert. It leads you to tears. You draw on the side of the road, control and listen to the end of the piece. Later, the host tells you that the piece was completely AI-infered.
Before we move forward with this thinking experience, let me overcome the objections that this can never happen, that AI can never do so. This is not just true. I have heard the music (and AI prose) according to AI, which is undoubtedly in motion. People who claim that Ai Art has “no soul” is offering something they want to be the truth. Without the definition of “spirit” on which all (or even most) people can agree, this is a meaningless statement. If your art definition includes elements such as novelty and surprise and ability to transmit people, then many examples are already given by AI – and they make better and more multiplied.
Return to the question posed by Vallen Concerto that you were sitting in the roadside tears: What was it Art That AI prepared? In terms of the impact of listeners (or viewers or readers) in other thinking experiments), anyone can certainly discuss yes. But what do you think about intentions? Of course, the artist’s intention should be a part of the entire package. This is the place where it has to be a bit.
For example, one can argue that someone was on the line starting, and that is why man deserves approval as an artist. But it fails to make an important acid test because, since occasionally uses AI to produce images, I know that the promoter can never predict what AI will produce. Best, we give it a shock and wait to see what comes out, probably before we understand the “best” output. It is difficult to easily sit in the vertebra, paint the brush in your hand. The Human Agency with AI has been reduced to a slightly lower than the hope switch operator.
Even worse, there are AI systems that do not require any indications. Just a goal, such as “Make 3000 rendering of great art -you are free to choose your style and impact.” Certainly, between the pile, will be a offer that is likely to experience someone Art.
The debate about this topic has arisen a trump: that is the equivalent of another tool to use artists historically. I don’t buy it. A paint brush is a tool that is a tool to show the artist on the canvas. Ditto to typewriter or Word Processor. AI is not such a toll. This is something else, which is a completely independent creator of its own production. And yet, it is not an artist – not from any interpretation. It does not need to be created as we humans do.
So, in the end, do we need to be able to tell the viewers really? Do we need to know or understand the fragility of what we see or hear? Not really If it moves you and makes you happy, thank you. We need more than that.
Do humans still need to create art? Yes Because it is in our nature. Who are we? This is the same thing that always marks us as a species. And, as now about this new generation, our lives are now spreading, okay, okay. It was a pleasure to meet you. It is bad that we cannot discuss art on a bottle of wine at a local hotel and then go home, take off our clothes and fall to bed.
Steven Bockey Sidley is a JBS, a professor of practice at the University of Johannesburg and a partner in the Bridge Capital and a columnist in the Daily Moric. His new book “This Mine: Hao The Hao Crypto Industry is newly appreciated” by the SA in the UK/EU and by the SA in the SA and the Legend Times Group, which is now available. Its articles can be found https://substack.com/@stevenBoykeysidley. Edit by Brian Mortimer