Re: why can't Ai make art

Saw someone asking this question on this subreddit. Spent +23 minutes typing the answer so I'm posting my reply here also.

There won't ever be a universally agreed upon answer for this question because art isn't definable.

But we have some clues to go off with.

Art as "mimesis": according to some Greek philosophers like Plato, art is an imitation of nature. This isn't surprising because much of the content of our thought therefore creations, are blueprints of nature. Blueprint because it's actually our brain's interpretations of nature that we perceive, reality itself bends and twists in the minds of the subject.

Also the way these blueprints actually work is by firing of a group of neurons simultaneously, which is Association.

So, the question is: is AI capable of perception, memory and association? Ai certainly has a memory that can be compared to other beings. However, perception has always been one of the most difficult tasks for Ai but perhaps it doesn't need to and we can get that out of the way. Association however, Ai is incapable of. Association and pure computational reasoning aren't the same thing. Association is closer to "intuition" than it is to computational reasoning.

Art as "Techne": Greek word for technique. According to Aristotle (I believe) there are two types of Techne; both are creative but one is functional (tool making) and another is leisurely and recreational, also known as fine arts. So art in this definition is necessarily creative. For me, creativity is about two things: 1.Imagination (conjuring "senses" and the blueprints with your mind) 2. Materials

So, is Ai creative? This one's sticky because when this was defined, the world was limited to the natural space; but now we have digital space. If we define material as an object that exists within a space, Ai (as well as digital art) can certainly use materials. But is it imaginative? The fact that it draws a necklace over an earing leads me to conclude it does not, maybe not yet.

Aesthetics: Art is smth that has aesthetic value. Not worth a debate. Ai can make aesthetically pleasing imagery but it does not understand aesthetics. This definition also includes depicting the ugly btw.

Art is meaningful and a form of communication: this is what art has always been for me. Ai does not care for meanings nor communication, it cares about meeting the demands of the user. In this definition Ai can't make art, but the users can. Personally I think it's a wacky definition to define entirety of art. If art was all about the message it conveys, then there wouldn't be a necessary for so many cultures across the earth and many eras of earth to come up with a different word for art instead of just using communication.

What content does art have?

If we can't come up with one universal definition for art, maybe we can agree on what it contains.

Intentionality: not to be confused with intentional. all the content of our thoughts have Intentionality, that being referencial, basically. In simpler words, thoughts refer to an object.

This would again require Ai to understand or sense what an object is; gen ai works by degrading an image into data, then reconstructing an amalgam of data back to an image. Both AI and humans can do that, that is if you accept the Reductionist view, that being a theory that all large scale systems are made up of smaller ones, including thoughts and imagination.

Personal opinion? I don't quite agree. Ai "estimates" based on data and statistics what a dog is, it does not have an adaptive and flexible blueprint of Dog that can be understood as such even if it lacks some characteristics of Dog or even looks entirely different. This suggests there's more to our brains than the Reductionist view.

History and experience: I've mentioned before that Ai does have a system that can be meaningfully compared with our memory. And it's definitely "historical" too. Ai has experiences because those are required for its learning model.

Is art unique to humans?

I say no. Crows are creative, apes show interest in "aesthetics".

Imo the reasons that Ai can't make art outweigh the reasons that suggest it does. But if I were forced to draw a comparison, Ai is definitely closer to being an artist than a person that entirely relies on prompting is.