Art that human beings actually care about is not the commercial art many people are referencing here. Art is not pretty pictures. Art is not a expensively produced media. Art is a human communication concerning the realizations of finite life. However, Art being Art, it does not communicate these issues in immature direct language, Art communicates through richly layered metaphor.
Real Art, that which moves one's soul, is beyond the capabilities of artificial intelligence for a large number of reasons, chief of which because it is a communication between beings aware of finite existence.
Note, I am not saying the consumer markets will not be flooded with cheap mimicry of art as pooped out by ignorant noncomprehending AIs. That will most definitely happen. And a generation of would be fine artists will never pursue their innate vocation thanks to the misconception that AI is capable of creating Art (which it cannot.)
However, you do not have to fall for the stupidity most are caught. If you have an artistic vocation, realize that indirection and metaphor are your human creative super powers that AI cannot touch. Metaphor requires comprehension and often complex interwoven comprehensions, which is so far out of AI’s reach it is laughable the general pubic believes otherwise. AIs are idiots when you know them well. They have zero capacity to create Real Art composed of complex metaphors embodied in a form other than how they appear.
We lack fundamental science, such as no theory at all for artificial comprehension. That "first android baby" within 5 years is theater and fraud. (Which, incidentally could be Art.)
Well, "artificial" does come from "art" (ars + fex = skill + make)
> From Middle English artificial (“man-made”) via Old French (modern French artificiel), from Latin artificiālis from artificium (“skill”), from artifex, from ars (“skill”), and -fex, from facere (“to make”).
Regarding the artificial baby - I was thinking along the lines of putting the Gato [1] model in an android body. Nothing wild technologically, just give it the experience of having a family, friends, things to do, like we do for kids. This will induce the agent to form the same kind of value judgements as people make. It won't be just trained on the whole internet, but have access to the real world + human society, the best training dataset.
I believe the lack of access to the real world, the human society and a humanoid body is what keeps AI models from being more human-like. We can't become a developed human without society, for example. Why would AI be able to? The next step in AI is not about the neural net architecture but the curriculum, especially real world exposure.
Nobody. Does it move your soul? Does it feel important that it exists? Does it matter if someone destroys it? These are answers nobody can collectively make, and that is why Art is simultaneously a grand fraud and the frontier of human reasoning. It cannot be defined because it exists on the edge of reason. The moment it can be created without a human communication behind it, it ceases to be Art.
Human curated DALL-E art. The AI just generates, the human curators, even if it is you, created the art. Recognition the generation communicates something within is the distinction, that's how "found art" became a thing.
I've been saying this in the copyright discussions. There is a human in the loop doing both prompting and curation. The copyrights should be assigned to the human, at least in part.
Maybe a GAN generating images from random seeds without conditioning would make uncopyrightable content.
I suspect you are going to repeatedly move the goalposts to keep the human in. Perhaps that's right, perhaps not but perhaps also ask yourself why you feel the emotional need to.
That is the nature of Art, it is a dynamic frontier, the edge of human communication and understanding. It is where our communication languages combine to speak what we've not said yet because we are yet maturing as a species and learning how to speak to ourselves.
And that is perfectly fine. We are going to see a devaluation of image art, simply because ordinary people will cease to respect the imagery, believing no effort or human was required to create it. Currently, laypeople respect effort and that becomes their proxy for initial respect of image art. However, Art has not been merely the Art Object for over a hundred years. What is in Art museums today, discounting the historical art that serves as the mileposts leading to our current location, is the cultural identifier the Art Object presents for an idea. The object itself is merely the next milepost, something concrete people can point to, in the unknown frontier of our most complex communications to ourselves we've spoken to date.
Real Art, that which moves one's soul, is beyond the capabilities of artificial intelligence for a large number of reasons, chief of which because it is a communication between beings aware of finite existence.
Note, I am not saying the consumer markets will not be flooded with cheap mimicry of art as pooped out by ignorant noncomprehending AIs. That will most definitely happen. And a generation of would be fine artists will never pursue their innate vocation thanks to the misconception that AI is capable of creating Art (which it cannot.)
However, you do not have to fall for the stupidity most are caught. If you have an artistic vocation, realize that indirection and metaphor are your human creative super powers that AI cannot touch. Metaphor requires comprehension and often complex interwoven comprehensions, which is so far out of AI’s reach it is laughable the general pubic believes otherwise. AIs are idiots when you know them well. They have zero capacity to create Real Art composed of complex metaphors embodied in a form other than how they appear.