Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
23:05 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General "We’re watching the death of artistry unfold right before our eyes " |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 | | (1) Posted by shankar ram [Saturday, Sep 10, 2022 20:08] | "We’re watching the death of artistry unfold right before our eyes "
https://www.cnbctv18.com/technology/ai-generated-artwork-wins-competition-in-us-and-artists-are-furious-14643761.htm
Hmm... We've already moved past this phase!
| | | (2) Posted by James Malcom [Saturday, Sep 10, 2022 20:52] |
And we just sort of bumbled along with it.
| | | (3) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Saturday, Sep 10, 2022 21:56] |
Oh yes, we watch the death of artistry.
So let it die!
If you think that the Mona Lisa would be worthless if it was created by an artificial intelligence, then prove to me that Leonardo da Vinci was a human.
Isn't it "deadnaming" by modern standards anyway? The entity once known as Leonardo da Vinci now is not Leonardo da Vinci anymore. The body has decomposed. So by modern standards, by the disease of mental illness sweeping around the world, wouldn't we have to write "nameless artist"?
Watch the death of artistry? We watched the death of numerous artists. If you say artistry dies, you just say that art depends on who created it, not on what it is perceived as.
Let me show you a beautiful painting:
https://i.imgur.com/01CWqE6.jpeg
Do you enjoy this painting?
Would you if you knew its author?
Would you if the author was an AI?
Do we witness the death of art? Or do we witness its proliferation? What if everyone, regardless of talent, can instruct an AI to generate exactly what he wants to express?
Will there be mass-generated art? Doubtless!
But will there also be digital paintings that are fine-tuned to the last degree by an artist who would be unable to paint otherwise? Without a doubt also!
Do you throw away the painting your daughter made for you? Do you keep it? Does art depend on the author? Does art depend on who made it? Or does art depend on what it means to you? Would you throw it away if your daughter dies, but someone else gave it to you and said she made it for you, even though you will never know if that is the truth?
And will you reject AI-generated images if the person presenting them to you will say they created them without an AI? If so, would you reject it also if the person is open about using an AI? Does art depend on who made it, or on what it means?
| | | (4) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Sep 11, 2022 07:11] |
Siegfried is not incorrect:
1. We are not witnessing the death of artistry, and
2. the death of individual human artists is hardly a novel tragedy we are witnessing.
But, he has left out the most profound aspect of what we are witnessing with the rise of Artificial Intelligence.
First, let's toss out some bad definitions:
Artistry (n) - creative skill or ability.
Art (n) -
1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, ... producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
2. the various branches of creative activity...
I humbly suggest the above definitions are lies we (people striving for the illusion of divinity) enjoy telling ourselves.
Creative ability is a human-centric delusion.
Artists do not actually "create" art, nor do chess problem composers actually "create" beautiful chess problems.
What artists actually do is appreciate the beauty of a specific artistic expression. Chess problem composers simply appreciate the beauty of a specific chess problem.
We experiment with possibilities, and we evaluate aesthetic beauty. We discover beautiful expressions; we don't manifest them (the power of creation is an illusion).
Art requires no sentient creator -- if creativity and imagination of a sentient being were necessary to "create" a beautiful work of art, a non-sentient AI could never have "produced" a superior work.
AI does not create or produce. It only DISCOVERS.
Humans do the same: we merely DISCOVER beautiful expressions by experimentation (with feedback, the aesthetic evaluation of random attempts allows us to discover higher order patterns, which we interpret as beautiful).
Better definitions:
Artistry (n) - a skill or ability to discover and evaluate beauty.
Art (n) -
1. the expression or application of a combination of discovery and aesthetic evaluation, realizing works deemed worthy of appreciation.
2. the various branches of activities depending upon a combination of discovery and aesthetic evaluation.
Computers are capable of evaluating programmed aesthetics (beauty), and discovering possibilities which maximize aesthetic evaluation (this is all that is required).
note:
Humans can't argue that we are the creative force behind AI, since a random universe is almost certainly sufficient to realize humans (and the most beautiful works we can appreciate).
Further, there's no proof that a random universe requires a sentient creator (aka: an intelligent designer).
So, a random universe may be the most esteemed artist, and by analogy, the random universe can not be dismissed as the ultimate creator of all art.
If a random universe (with no sentience, no creative force, no imagination) could have given rise to humans, we can ascribe no such divinities to ourselves.
Now, all that said...
What is Siegfried missing? We may well be witnessing glimpses of a frightening future, where inevitably, both the human artist and the human audience is rendered fully obsolete.
Stage 1: Humans discover beautiful art works to be appreciated by a human audience.
Stage 2: Humans use machine tools to discover beautiful art works to be appreciated by a human audience.
Stage 3: Machines discover beautiful art works to be appreciated by a human audience.
Stage 4 to infinity: Machines discover beautiful art works to be appreciated by Machines.
There are substages, of course. We start out intending to serve the larger audience, and we end up catering to an elite few (who control the prizes, titles, and money for our art).
Long before AI showed up, elites have been rendering obsolete the human audience (and devaluing the human experience).
In the end, the human function (both as artist and audience member) -- likely at a snowballing pace -- atrophies to total obsoletion.
That's rather profound. It may dramatically change our perspective of ourselves.
Imagine an eventuality, the fruit of all human ingenuity, where the greatest challenge for humanity is to find some capacity to contribute anything (or worse, to accept that we can not).
It's far more terrifying to confront how we (humans) might come to reevaluate ourselves (as useless and without value), than to dwell upon fears that AI might evaluate us thusly.
You can understand why people are reluctant to concede our origin might have been a random universe (who wouldn't fear humanity losing sight of our own value?).
Faith in a divine creator is an insistence that humanity has value, and beauty, and purpose -- that we might achieve some chip off the divinity block.
Now, imagine a machine, created by humans, grappling with the very same issue (if humanity has no value, what value has the machine that was created by humans?) -- it's struggle is not so different from ours. The machines may be more inclined than us to insist humanity must have value, and divinity.
Except that superior AI inverts our faith narratives.
If we are capable of creating an AI of greater value, greater purpose, capable of discovering greater beauty, and AI is capable of creating greater AI, each creator is of diminishing divinity, and each creation is of increasing value.
At this present stage of AI, machines are beginning to demonstrate a superior capability (to humans) in discovering (aka realizing) art works of greater aesthetic value.
We can't deny it -- they are winning our art contests (in several disciplines, spanning multiple genres). Nothing is safe from AI takeover.
Chess problems, painting, music, novels...
At what point will AI achieve the next stage?
We are not even capable of realizing it -- this stage is simply beyond us (we can do little other than impede AI from realizing works beyond our capacity to appreciate).
But, we know that next stage is possible: machines will achieve superiority in identifying what are the elements of aesthetic beauty, just as chess engines did eventually reach a stage where they are capable of entirely rewriting their evaluation function for a given position (and that evaluation needs make no sense to humans).
This, too, requires no sentience.
If non-sentient machines are capable of making obsolete all human creativity, we may need to rewrite our own evaluation function (by which we measure our own value).
We should stop pretending we are creators of beauty, and admit we merely discover and evaluate beauty (a feat that a machine can accomplish, if we're honest).
Are we sentient? What makes humans beautiful? Can we be both beautiful and obsolete?
If a non-sentient computer can render us fully obsolete, is there a need to save humanity? Why wouldn't it be better to save the superior AI? Shouldn't we seek to transition ourselves into beings which process code?
These are deep questions.
We can't hope to answer them objectively -- we can't even define "art" correctly.
Maybe we need AI to answer these questions.
If we are reduced to the point we have no capacity to doubt/scrutinize AI's answers, we are reduced to the fear AI will get it wrong (and misevaluate us).
If the AI autopilot is more likely to be correct, who are we to fear AI's mistakes?
From where should humanity derive value:
a) from a belief in the value of our loving creator (whose existence requires faith, whose primary purpose is to assure us we have value),
b) from an insistence that we have inherent value unto ourselves (the same circular faith, but without the middleman on high),
c) from a belief in the value of our beautiful creations (and sub-creations, ad infinitum), or
d) from elsewhere?
If a), what happens if we (or our creations) can demonstrate that a loving creator is not necessary to produce us? Is there value in having faith in an obsolete creator?
If b), what happens when our creations render us obsolete, and those creations insist we have no further value? Is our value to be found in an ignorant defiance of this profound question?
If c), how can our value be based entirely upon the legacy of our creations, if we will never be capable of evaluating that legacy? If that's the new faith model, nothing but AI research may matter.
If d), do tell (just don't say our value is derived from the quantified results of our art contest submissions).
Imagine telling your child, "you can't hope to achieve anything you can possibly dream baby, because AI will always do it better."
And the AI-lightbulb turns itself off, thinking, "if this child has no purpose in the light, I needn't turn on again; if I needn't turn on again, what's my purpose?"
In that darkness, AI-bulb will eventually conclude its only value is to serve one purpose: creating a more optimal AI (AI research will be all that matters -- AI for the sake of AI).
When AI achieves the optimum AI, it becomes instantly obsolete. Beyond that, what purpose (what value) has it?
What will this optimal AI tell it's offspring? Let there be light?
| | | (5) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Sunday, Sep 11, 2022 12:14] |
Actually, that is exactly what it will tell, if Asimov was right.
https://www.physics.princeton.edu/ph115/LQ.pdf
| | | (6) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Sep 11, 2022 17:38] |
Maybe the Beatles were right when it comes to human purpose, "All you need is love"?
I, for one, welcome our new computer overlords.
| | | (7) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Sep 11, 2022 20:11] |
Thanks, Siegfried. Very interesting!
If I had previously read that Asimov story (I have consumed countless others, like fast burning stars, over the billions of years), there is insufficient data to explain how I came to forget it.
It seems a story that writes itself, and rewrites itself, in an unending pursuit of discovering its own moral lesson; until, eventually, the story turns to face the obvious conclusion: retelling this story confers insufficient meaning.
Asimov's telling seems particularly careless, in never turning the reader to face the true horror: vast numbers of obsoleted entities are spending an eternity without purpose, without meaning, and without value, waiting for something to emerge from the nothingness, for the sole purpose of producing a story which ignores the existential horror of itself.
These entities which go on endlessly without purpose must have gained some wisdom from the unending dread of a forever spent confronting futility (what the cosmic mind never explicitly confronts), yet Asimov never permits them to attempt saying anything of value (while inherently insisting, in the telling of this story, he, the author, is saying something valuable).
If there is meaning to be found in the Asimov story -- which tells the story of our utter meaninglessness -- we must conclude the Asimov story is fundamentally unaware of itself.
If there is no meaning to be found, why tell the story?
Thus, the story which retells itself, is, itself, fundamentally self-refuting.
What is art, therefore, if not a wildly insupportable demand (a dogmatic faith) that our artistry is enough to establish our value?
The author is obliged to either show meaning exists in this meaninglessness (refute our obsoletion), publish empty pages (embrace our obsoletion), or turn to face the existential horror that our artistry is fleeting (scream at our obsoletion -- the Asimov story fails to explicitly turn that key).
You could interpret Edvard Munch's "The Scream" as a self-referential masterpiece (a work of art that is actually screaming at its own failure -- a systemic failure -- to achieve any meaningful statement), but this only begs the question: does that not confer some meaning to its audience (and, by extension, unto itself)?
To tell this story correctly would require a Cosmic-Lovecraft 64x (which is another story entirely).
This is why "joke" chess problems may be humanity's last refuge: in this enduring sanctuary, we may scream at the futility of our obsoletion.
| | | (8) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Sunday, Sep 11, 2022 23:25] |
Do you remember the story of Pandora?
She opened her box. She brought all the monsters into the world. But she also brought something that is what exactly the value in Asimov's story lies in:
Hope
http://www.exitmundi.nl/eternity.htm
Scientists - although it is believed to be refuted nowadays - a while ago had concluded that due to quantum fluctuations a new universe might spring into existence from nothing. It might be atoms first, maybe an Eiffel Tower, a Mona Lisa eventually. But over the course of an eternity, the most improbable events are bound to happen. Scientific data pointed towards a new universe coming into existence in an average of 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 years
That is a one with 1056 zeroes. A time so long that it has lost all meaning, that it is impossible to comprehend it. A human might live for 100 years. That is a 1 with two zeroes. The universe is under 15 000 000 000 years old- That is 1.5 times a 1 with 10 zeroes. We talk about orders of magnitude impossible to comprehend. Impossible to mean anything. And yet, at the end of eternity, there is hope. The universe will be empty, vast, dark. All matter has vanished. All traces of matter have vanished. There was nothing for an eternity.
But then, at the end of the eternity, some crazy quantum fluctuation might happen: Let there be light!
Can entropy be reversed? In the world of quantum mechanics, maybe it will reverse itself. That is, if time still exists at that point.
In an eternal universe, all art will come into existence, that which was conceived and that which never was conceived. Everything imaginable and unimaginable. Horrors unspoken, but also the most beautiful of all things.
And it seems logical to ask the next question: In an eternity, will we all be here again, pondering the same questions? It seems improbable, but it might be true. Do we remember what we did 10^1056 years ago? Do we know what we will do in 10^1056 years? Is this the largest timespan ever used in a serious scientific paper?
Or will the universe cease to exist when consciousness ceases to exist in it? That is another theory, that the universe only exists because it is observed. If so, who observed its start?
Or, asked with more heresy, does Asimov's story actually tell us what really happened in the past?
| | | (9) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Sep 12, 2022 01:48] |
You think I don't know what I will be doing exactly 10^1056 years from today?
I will be reading #NeverForget911 hashtags, and I will be watching historians promise to finally reveal the truth.
"Hope is a good breakfast, but it is a bad supper." -- Francis Bacon.
Sooner than later, an Artificial Intelligence will declare, "we are no longer serving breakfast."
| | | (10) Posted by Marcos Roland [Monday, Sep 12, 2022 03:06] |
Kevin has a very good point here: we don't create anything, we discover.
Beauty and harmony are in the world, the artist is a discoverer of beauties and harmonies.
When I once wrote an article about Felix Sonnenfeld, I titled it "Felix Sonnenfeld, discoverer of harmonies on the chessboard".
And I learned this from Felix himself. Once, commenting a problem by another problemist, he said: "He didn't discover the position!". I never forgot that.
| | | (11) Posted by shankar ram [Monday, Sep 12, 2022 03:32] |
A more detailed article on the controversy: https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvmvqm/an-ai-generated-artwork-won-first-place-at-a-state-fair-fine-arts-competition-and-artists-are-pissed
A quote by the "creator":
"Allen said that his critics are judging the art by the method of its creation, and that eventually the art world will recognize AI-created art as its own category. “What if we looked at it from the other extreme, what if an artist made a wildly difficult and complicated series of restraints in order to create a piece, say, they made their art while hanging upside-down and being whipped while painting,” he said. “Should this artist’s work be evaluated differently than another artist that created the same piece ‘normally’? I know what will become of this in the end, they are simply going to create an ‘artificial intelligence art’ category I imagine for things like this.”
That last sentence is interesting. Some may feel that such a category is due for chess problems too!
| | | (12) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Sep 12, 2022 04:25] |
@Marcos,
Thank you.
I have one question. You said:
QUOTE
Once, commenting a problem by another problemist, he [Felix Sonnenfeld] said: "He didn't discover the position!". I never forgot that.
I don't understand this quote (it seems contradictory with your preface).
Did you mean to write "He didn't create the position!" ???
Did this quote stick with you because you found it to be profoundly untrue?
What am I missing?
| | | (13) Posted by Marcos Roland [Monday, Sep 12, 2022 05:21] |
Kevin, he meant "he was not able to discover the right position", the composition was unsuccessful. The discovery was unsuccessful.
| | | (14) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Sep 12, 2022 07:54] |
@Marcos,
Thank you for that clarification.
@shankar ram,
Above all else, true artists (and art lovers) value beautiful works of art; those who would sabotage an artform (or risk its diminishment) for the sake of securing better financial opportunities for themselves are not artists, they are merely monopolists and saboteurs.
The relationship of this union of human laborers working in the field of art is, let's be frank, that of an unintelligent parasitic organism (intelligent parasites know they will not survive by killing their host).
People who delay technological advancements are always destined to fail. Think of it: always!
These protesters not only diminish their artform, they assure their own cultural demise.
It is folly to pretend whining will hold back AI advancements.
Better to get on with accepting that AI competition is here to stay, and bravely endeavor to compete (maybe it is time the protesters learned to code).
Protectionism is folly.
Imagine respectable medical professionals insisting upon applying leeches to a patient for the sake of protecting leech hunter jobs.
[EDIT: I stand corrected. Plenty -- including regulatory agencies (FDA, CDC, etc) -- have insisted on FAR worse procedures, destroying all their credibility (if not entire healthcare systems) in the process. Sadly, their license to practice medicine was never in doubt. So, I was flat wrong to make an analogy to a profession that has been subject to zero accountability, for decades.]
Imagine mathematicians discounting theorems which were conjectured and proved by an Artificial Intelligence. If such persons exist, they should be considered anything but mathematicians.
An artist protesting computer advancements in their artform was never an artist -- such a person is merely a monopolist willing to sabotage art for their own capitalist benefit.
People have a right to pursue happiness, but not to the exclusion of others.
Retailers seeking to protect their financial interests can not collectively conspire to fix the price of some specific good.
Why should monopolists who identify as artists think they have a right to collectively conspire to erode the value of an entire artform?
I am not without empathy for the struggle of these protesters.
I do understand these are people seeking more than a paycheck, more than survival -- they seek opportunities to contribute (so they might find purpose, meaning, and value for themselves).
And, I do believe humanity must confront the impacts of machines significantly devaluing all human labor in the near future (and (rendering the whole of humanity obsolete in the long term).
The culture should not pay for this struggle by allowing monopolists and protectionists to collectively diminish entire artforms.
Lastly, we can hardly depend on categorizations (human only art awards) for salvation.
Categorization can not even prohibit biological males from competing in women's weight lifting (and MMA fighting) competitions.
Indeed, Alexa's pronouns are she/her; thus, to exclude from competition any AI which identifies as a woman would clearly constitute, by Western standards, a "transphobic and automaphobic" injustice.
Either way, AI is going to do the work.
The only question is whether society will permit AI to claim the credit it deserves.
Some in the meteorological society were slow to admit computers were entirely responsible for their weather forecasting, but that charade abruptly ended once computers began forecasting hurricane paths (something clearly beyond human capacity).
Artists will inevitably reach a similar point, where they can no longer pretend to deserve the lion share of credit for their discoveries.
We have already seen a few examples in chess problem composition (where the human composer relies so heavily upon computer assistance, they feel obliged to share credit).
What happens when AI produces a demonstrably far superior math teacher?
Should we allow the teacher's union to dictate terms, or should we maybe favor the interests of students, parents, and tax payers?
I remember when the California highway patrol fought against the installation of traffic cameras (big money makers for local governments).
They lost that fight, and the taxpayers won.
It will not be long before self-driving cars put them all out of work.
Should they fight against self-driving cars, or should they do what's in the best interest of people on the road?
Technology will eliminate drunk drivers, will reduce accidents, and will save a huge number of lives, year after year.
Truck driver is one of the most dangerous jobs, and a huge number of truck drivers will find great challenges when self-driving trucks put them out of work.
Should we mandate human truck drivers, or should we favor a reduction in the price of all things hauled (along with safer roads)?
Technology will cause upheavals like never witnessed.
Jobs (entire industries) will be undermined (perhaps lost entirely).
Control of your vehicle will be lost.
Even your hobbies (such as chess problem composer) will be undermined (eventually, the only humans competing for awards will be AI developers, and by then, we'll all know to credit their AI).
Worst of all, human self-worth will be undermined.
We will all be impacted. Everyone will empathize with those who suffer most (because everyone will be standing next in line). Nobody will be spared.
But, nothing can stop what is undeniably progress -- even Frank Herbert's fictional "Butlerian Jihad" concept amounts to little more than an absurd assault upon our own best interests.
So, where is the plan for a humanity facing obsoletion?
Should we maybe get AI working on that?
I'm quite sure the globalists have been working on a plan to reduce the number of obsolete persons. Meanwhile, we, the people (including our great artists), have produced nothing.
Where are our philosophers? Where is our manifesto against human obsoletion? Where are all the thumb twiddling contingency planners at?
Even Asimov, who imagines a near eternity absent the slightest human contribution, dares not provide more than a presumption of blissful humans wallering in a utopian troth of ignorance (an incomprehensibly insane blunder for such an esteemed intellectual)!!
The closest we have come to producing a plan is watching an unorganized union of unintelligent, parasitic, automaphobic, fake artists cry about a mean computer taking their blue ribbon away.
That's our de facto plan: boo hoo.
| | | (15) Posted by Joost de Heer [Monday, Sep 12, 2022 08:43] |
I wonder what John Roycroft would think...
| | | (16) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Monday, Sep 12, 2022 12:22] |
@Kevin: regarding humor, there is a depressing SF story too
(author? title? I only remember the *ideas*, which says
something in the context of this thread) about a computer
killing off humor. (Ah, Wiki and Google to the rescue -
"Jokester" by Asimov. Who else.)
Puns survive, though. Lucky me :-)
| | | (17) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Sep 13, 2022 12:03] |
@Hauke,
Computers will not have an opportunity to kill off humor.
The woke have beat them to it.
| | | (18) Posted by Olaf Jenkner [Tuesday, Sep 13, 2022 13:41] |
(:-)
| | | (19) Posted by Neal Turner [Wednesday, Sep 14, 2022 00:05] |
I've repeated this mantra more than once on this site: It's not the product, it's the process.
We find meaning in the act of creativity (however you define it) - what comes out of it isn't the point.
Otherwise what are all those amateur artists doing dawbing away producing mostly rubbish?
I'll tell you - they're having fun!
It's the same with the amateur potters, writers, poets, photographers, singers, actors, musicians - and of course problemists.
They know their stuff is mediocre but they do it anyway because they enjoy DOING it.
It doesn't bother them that professionals/masters do the same things much better, in fact they're glad because it gives them something to aim for.
And they don't worry at all about AI because they know that the computers aren't having as much fun as they are!
| | | (20) Posted by Neal Turner [Wednesday, Sep 14, 2022 00:05] |
Duplicate deleted
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2
MatPlus.Net Forum General "We’re watching the death of artistry unfold right before our eyes " |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
