Richard65 · M
If you're truly creative then the urge to express yourself will be your primary concern. A true creative/artist creates work for themselves, the fact others like their work is a bonus, they'd still paint, draw, sing, or make music if they were exiled alone on a desert island. The art is in the creative process, not necessarily the finished product. AI can produce pleasing results, but it can never be art because there was no vision, no striving to express itself, no DESIRE to communicate thoughts and emotions through its art. It's just creating something because it's programmed to. When AI gains sentience (if it ever can), then ask that question again.
View 2 more replies »
CrazyMusicLover · 31-35
@Richard65 No, I don't talk about the case " you often don't know what the outcome of your prompts will look like". I talk about an artist achieving exactly the results he or she has in mind. Also if you take that as a condition then you can't call many traditional art forms art as well. For example watercolor because that is also the process where the artist often won't know the outcome.
Richard65 · M
@CrazyMusicLover yes, but the artist is wielding the brush and the mark is made through the weight and movement of his hand and arm, coordinated by his eye (and brain), which means the artist is striving to visualise his own idea.
I'll ask you a question. If I prompt an AI programme with a story scenario and characters and then that AI programme produces a story for me based on my prompts, does that make me a novelist?
I'll ask you a question. If I prompt an AI programme with a story scenario and characters and then that AI programme produces a story for me based on my prompts, does that make me a novelist?
CrazyMusicLover · 31-35
@Richard65 That is not always how watercolor painting works though. There are methods that rely on how water will flow and the paint mixes and dries without a clear idea of what the outcome should be.
But you only think of AI as a system that combines items in the library it has. The system million of people use the same way and everyone gets approximately the same style as the outcome. I talk about machine learning. Feeding AI specific content and guide it in uncountable steps until it creates what you want it to create. You could instruct and guide another person the same way and then who is going to be the artist? Both? Just the one who came up with the idea or just the craftsman who follows the instructions without any personal input?
But you only think of AI as a system that combines items in the library it has. The system million of people use the same way and everyone gets approximately the same style as the outcome. I talk about machine learning. Feeding AI specific content and guide it in uncountable steps until it creates what you want it to create. You could instruct and guide another person the same way and then who is going to be the artist? Both? Just the one who came up with the idea or just the craftsman who follows the instructions without any personal input?
I will never feel that way about AI-generated music. Especially the percussion part of it. It's all too perfectly rhythmic. It lacks a human touch and input. I can't explain it, but I can hear it. It's just too perfect. Humans don't play like that. It lacks improvisation too. Something it's incapable of.. For me, it actually has no feeling.
MrSmartyPants · 46-50, M
The end product on the surface is identical as when humans made it. I have enjoyed some AI music, not songs though, some of which are genuinely funny, in a Robot Chicken kind of way, but instrumental mixes, like Persian Trance stuff, impressed me!!
I think perhaps in the arts AI's threat is more to do with what the life of the artist is going to be, and the audience, will we be satisfied by fake stuff, and thus send gifted people to McDonalds or whatever other job there is, or will we insist that humans create what we choose to enjoy, thus keeping a demand for those with a living pulse, or those growing number of them who used to have a pulse, and insisting that their masterpieces be left as they were, and not to tinker around with them.
I think perhaps in the arts AI's threat is more to do with what the life of the artist is going to be, and the audience, will we be satisfied by fake stuff, and thus send gifted people to McDonalds or whatever other job there is, or will we insist that humans create what we choose to enjoy, thus keeping a demand for those with a living pulse, or those growing number of them who used to have a pulse, and insisting that their masterpieces be left as they were, and not to tinker around with them.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
exchrist · 36-40
Depending on perspective; consider the following
1) it means nothing the brain itself is the original supercomputer (albeit organic)
2)it’s all based on the same algorithms that marketing and sales have always used so does it mean anything?, eventually all possibilities become reality.
And 3) because it takes 30 years for copyright and trademark to become commonly available and free open source anyway. Thus, At what point did these creations become inadvertent repeats of past production? At best “original” remixes with different words
1) it means nothing the brain itself is the original supercomputer (albeit organic)
2)it’s all based on the same algorithms that marketing and sales have always used so does it mean anything?, eventually all possibilities become reality.
And 3) because it takes 30 years for copyright and trademark to become commonly available and free open source anyway. Thus, At what point did these creations become inadvertent repeats of past production? At best “original” remixes with different words
exchrist · 36-40
Is it the beginning of robot consciousness?
If ai ever produces original productions of music or art does that meet the requirement of sentience? Is humanity god. Of AI? Can it reach full circle? Seems to be getting close.
If ai ever produces original productions of music or art does that meet the requirement of sentience? Is humanity god. Of AI? Can it reach full circle? Seems to be getting close.
CrazyMusicLover · 31-35
That if you need to ask this you probably never thought about art forms, emotions and marketing in depth so far. There are proven, well-known tools to induce certain emotions in recipients. People working in marketing and advertisement are taught how to target individual demographics by sound, colors, themes etc. Making an average person moved isn't a rocket science. AI is a mere tool.
Unlearn · 41-45, M
@CrazyMusicLover If you heard an incredible song for a year, loved it deeply, and then discovered it was entirely AI-generated, would the song suddenly become less beautiful?
CrazyMusicLover · 31-35
@Unlearn Honestly, I don't really understand this obsession with the author because many people don't realize that how we emotionally respond to music is based on our own history, our memories and emotions connected to them, it often doesn't have anything to do with the author or what he or she intended to achieve. The author releases a song and this song is going to live its own life, every single recipient is going to give it their own meaning, often interpret it according to what they want it to be, mold it into their own life situation. The singer might just do some voice exercises, just for fun, find something interesting they put in a song because it sounds cool to them but otherwise has no deeper emotional meaning whatsoever. Yet you can find people who find it cathartic, it hits something in their being that makes them feel ecstatic, that gives them pleasure or that expresses exactly the emotion they wish they could express but can't. And that wasn't even intended, it's the recipient who gave it a special meaning, maybe exclusively special to them.
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
AI cannot create. At best it synthesises from the original work of humans . . frequently without acknowledgement or financial compensation 🙄
WanderingHelplessly · 51-55, MNew
This fact alone scares me.