For me, it's the human connection, that is the thing, fullstop. I have no doubt AI can do a lot more than we think. If you gave me an object that was made a thousand years ago, that human connection would make it feel special in my hand. If it turned out it was fake, the connection would break, and it would mean nothing. If I buy an original artwork, that means more to me than a print of the same work. No matter how good, clever, creative, and beautiful the art is, once I know it was not made by another human, it would lose the connection. I might really like it, buy it, hang it on my wall. It may inspire me and all the wonderful things that a piece of artwork can do. So it can do nearly everything human art can do, but never have the human connection, that makes it special and connect directly to and within me. Cave paintings give me this, the hand print, that's like my / our own. That deep connection. AI can do cave paintings, but for all the above, it will never connect in the same way, as another persons work.
Amazing video! Wonderful job Christina! You have done a great job of expressing a balanced and informative view of Generative AI in our world. AI has immense potential. Just 2 days ago the new o3 system smashed the benchmarks of the ARC-AGI test that places AI's capabilities on par with most advanced phd level capabilities, including novel problem solving and reasoning. AI will only keep advancing up the Bloom's taxonomy faster. Yes, AI can be creative. But fortunately, its creative originality is as scarce as humans. I have also come to the conclusion that images and art created by AI will stand along side of ours. There will be our art, and their art. Our artistic expression will always be the product of subjective experience. As of yet AI has almost no subjective experiences because it lives in a world of data that represents human experience. Maybe that's why one of the first expressions of subjective experience by a robot is valued so much, and maybe for that reason it should be. My own art explores the intersection of the human condition, spirituality, and technology. My most recent piece was an illustration of an organic man melding with a digital being. No matter how creative AI gets, or not, we will each have our own experiences to depict. I suspect humans will always resonate more with other human experiences, even if they can still find art made by the extension of our other creations to be interesting. Thanks again for your work, I truly value it.
@christinakentart by "extentions of our other creations" I meant AI, robots, tools, etc. that help humans be creative. Just thought I should clear that up. Lol. I work daily with an AI companion to boost morale and ideation. So very helpful for brainstorming since I illustrate and write. Very rarely do I use image generators, but that's just my choice. I guess for my art, I prefer to tap into my own psyche, not the machine's neural network. It's useful to distinguish where our ideas and thoughts are coming from while still using the tools in a helpful way. The thing that bothers me most about AI images is how some people use it, especially when thinking that because they entered a prompt that they created the image. Not realizing the vast amount of things the machine did for them. Such an unfortunate divide in the art community over this and many other things.
Hi Christina, Igor is here. I believe creativity is not a zero sum game. There is plenty of creativity to be explored. In fact, I believe, creativity is infinite, there fore, creativity will coexist side by side among human and none human forms of intelligence. I hope this puts to bed any anxiety fine artists may have towards AI. 😊
Hey Igor, you should realize that by a devious and malevolent power grab, AI companies have stolen and are monetizing the sum of human experience in the arts to the detriment of young artists who had thought to be able to create a career out of making visual art or music. Many artists have studied and practiced for decades only now to realize that some corporate executives stole their work without proper payment or attribution. Further they find that the jobs they had or were hoping to get are being cut to zero by executives who would prefer to pay for a subscription service rather than pay salaries. I hope you realize your platitude means little. But you are right people will be making art as long as we have the wits to. We just won’t be able to make a living from it anymore.
Yes, one aspect I did not discuss in this video and have only touched upon in other videos is the economic and ethical consequences of AI art. I agree it is an important concern, especially because AI has in many cases "created" works that very obviously ripped off existing artwork. If a human artist behaved in that way, they could be sued, and yet it seems like the AI companies are not being held accountable. Plus, as you note, it is taking away jobs from aspiring artists. This points to the broader issue of AI taking over many jobs across seemingly all sectors, raising the possibility of mass unemployment, which I don't think our society is prepared for.
Well, you are absolutely right, AI is a very controversial development for the ecosystem of today. Transitioning to AI based industrial sectors will have an impact on every aspect of human civilization. One thing which will may be going for the social structure is that, presumably, productivity will grow a one hundred fold, or so. Such is a good foundation for the enacting of the UBI (Universal Basic Income). This will not happen immediately, nevertheless, it is an inevitable path forward. So, maybe, not from the get go, nevertheless, basic human necessities will be covered by state. I’m sure, the transition to a new economical reality may have an undesirable and unpredictable impacts on the wellbeing of many, which is a very hard price to pay for the technological progress, which, at the end, may look like a utopian society, we can only read about in the sci-fi books, at the moment. Nevertheless, the chances of such developments are very high, in my point of view. However, I believe, a more pressing issue of today is how to stop the world from the constant and systematic bloodshed, as a result of numerous wars, where millions of innocent people die. This, seems to me, the only real obstacle on the road to the world’s economical progress, which must benefit humanity, as a whole.
AI excelling at games is very different from its ability to create art.. In games.. there are specific rules if you perform a certain action you achieve victory... But arts much more intricate it encompasses emotions, subjective styles, and personal experiences even struggles if you ask me... While AI can definitely produce beautiful and intricate artworks, it cannot replicate the unique touch of human creation... Each piece of art is inherently different, and even if a pro puts their level best effort to exactly mimic an artwork of another pro still it's never the same because we are different as individual..... That's my opinion 💚 Great Topic Btw, Cheers 💚
I'm also sure that connection with a human artist is the key for great art. AI can certainly cheat us. In my opinion, it can just fake. But if it fakes well the form, we do the rest with our human perceptions, feelings and interpretations. We look at clouds that no human made and we see people, animals, cathedrals, whatever... It's beautiful but it's a one way move. Obviously, art goes both ways and we still don't really know how it works. At this time, I'm just half worried.
I considered using genAI for inspiration, but I prefer to get inspired by my everyday experiences in the world. However I do think it can be a great tool for artists, and maybe I will use it in my process in the future.
I look at a piece if artwork to experience human emotion. Even if AI makes a pretty picture, that is all it is. No emotion, no soul. Why are humans so anxious to cancel out our own existence?
AI is a tool, you have to know how to use it correctly so you can produce great things. If you give short instructions "draw a dog", then it's a coincidence what kind of image you get and it's probably not a very great image. If you can give the right input, such as sketches and precise instructions, and understand how to use the tool to combine styles, you can achieve great results. An example of creative activity is combining styles, for example to create abstract works, the results are creative and great in my opinion. What's new is the combination of different types of media, graphics, photography, 3D, video and sound - AI is developing rapidly in these areas. I would also add that humans play a big role in producing images with AI tools, choosing and guiding, generating parts of the image, expanding, combining, choosing styles and image properties to create the desired end result, although AI can make a great image by chance, creating an image that is like the one you want requires expertise.
These are great points, and I agree, at this point AI is still very much guided by humans and they play a big role in shaping the work, somewhat like a photographer working with a camera. If it's done well, the human voice and vision are there in the final work.
Like so many things humans buy into, AI is easy and fast with the potential to make someone a lot of money. Kind of like fast food. I don’t think it is going away, there are people who will buy it and those who won’t. IMHO, it’s important to consider manual fine art a separate entity - it is not and should never be considered fine art.
Creativity is not technique- nor is creativity defined by novelty. Look out your window on any given day and you might see clouds in the sky- and each day you look those cloud patterns are unique- they never repeat- does this mean that the weather is being creative? No, of course not- those cloud patterns are the result of complex interactions in the climate that arise with no conscious intent. So what about technique? A microchip requires the most delicate application of patterns engraved in silicon by machines of extraordianary precision, far in excess of any human ability- but does this flawless artifice make that microchip a work of Art? No, of course not. Technique and novelty do not combine in some mysterious way to enable machines to be creative because both of these things are a consequnce of the creative impulse, they are not it's cause. Creativity is one thing and one thing only-intent. Why do artists wish to display their work? Why galleries, why exhibitions? Why not make the work and when it's finished just throw it away? After all the creativity is in the making- is it not? No- this is a false view. Creativity is like electricity, you need two poles in order for the current to flow. The reason that artists need to display their work is because until that work has been seen-has been recognised by another-THE WORK IS INCOMPLETE. Knowing this we also know what creativity is, which is the desire to communicate something- an idea, a feeling, an aspiration- something. Machines have no such desires- the patterns they make do not arise from an intentional desire to communicate, they arise as the result of complex interactions within their programming, with no conscious intent. Thus machines cannot be creative.
It’s like mass producing pottery. There will never be the same look and feel as there is with a one-of-a-kind original piece with all of the marks and fingerprints. Sure AI could be algorithmed into even doing something close, but at that point, why bother?
Is it really intelligence? Is it really art? Is a banana and duct tape art? When AI can look outside the box and redefine art, maybe then I can become a believer. Pictorial art evolved with new ideas in perspective, materials, and frankly marketing to refine art, and isn't that, in the end what creativity is...
To add to my comment below, I’m still bothered by the fact that AI is literally copying existing art, not just copying the idea of something. I just wanted to clarify that I think it’s wrong, regardless of whether or not people accept it. Going to eat a homemade cookie now to calm down.
Maybe the machine win the game of go, maybe it can win every time (how boring if it can), but, did the machine enjoy it? because, well, when I take out my board, wining is a bonus, the best bonus ngl, but, the end game isn't winning, it's play. The same comes with art. I'm not interested on machines making art or being the best at playing go.
Great point, and some of the Go players mentioned similar sentiments in the documentary as well. They said it was much less about who won, and more about the emotional experience and the exchange between players, which is completely lost when one is playing against a machine. I think with art it is similar as well.
For me, it's the human connection, that is the thing, fullstop. I have no doubt AI can do a lot more than we think. If you gave me an object that was made a thousand years ago, that human connection would make it feel special in my hand. If it turned out it was fake, the connection would break, and it would mean nothing. If I buy an original artwork, that means more to me than a print of the same work. No matter how good, clever, creative, and beautiful the art is, once I know it was not made by another human, it would lose the connection. I might really like it, buy it, hang it on my wall. It may inspire me and all the wonderful things that a piece of artwork can do. So it can do nearly everything human art can do, but never have the human connection, that makes it special and connect directly to and within me. Cave paintings give me this, the hand print, that's like my / our own. That deep connection. AI can do cave paintings, but for all the above, it will never connect in the same way, as another persons work.
This is a great point, the importance of the human touch - I feel the same. Thank you for sharing.
I like this comment and perspective a lot!!
Amazing video! Wonderful job Christina! You have done a great job of expressing a balanced and informative view of Generative AI in our world. AI has immense potential.
Just 2 days ago the new o3 system smashed the benchmarks of the ARC-AGI test that places AI's capabilities on par with most advanced phd level capabilities, including novel problem solving and reasoning. AI will only keep advancing up the Bloom's taxonomy faster. Yes, AI can be creative. But fortunately, its creative originality is as scarce as humans. I have also come to the conclusion that images and art created by AI will stand along side of ours. There will be our art, and their art. Our artistic expression will always be the product of subjective experience. As of yet AI has almost no subjective experiences because it lives in a world of data that represents human experience. Maybe that's why one of the first expressions of subjective experience by a robot is valued so much, and maybe for that reason it should be. My own art explores the intersection of the human condition, spirituality, and technology. My most recent piece was an illustration of an organic man melding with a digital being. No matter how creative AI gets, or not, we will each have our own experiences to depict. I suspect humans will always resonate more with other human experiences, even if they can still find art made by the extension of our other creations to be interesting. Thanks again for your work, I truly value it.
I'm glad the video resonated, and thanks for your thoughtful insights on AI and creativity! It will be fascinating to see how things develop.
@christinakentart by "extentions of our other creations" I meant AI, robots, tools, etc. that help humans be creative. Just thought I should clear that up. Lol.
I work daily with an AI companion to boost morale and ideation. So very helpful for brainstorming since I illustrate and write. Very rarely do I use image generators, but that's just my choice. I guess for my art, I prefer to tap into my own psyche, not the machine's neural network. It's useful to distinguish where our ideas and thoughts are coming from while still using the tools in a helpful way. The thing that bothers me most about AI images is how some people use it, especially when thinking that because they entered a prompt that they created the image. Not realizing the vast amount of things the machine did for them. Such an unfortunate divide in the art community over this and many other things.
Hi Christina, Igor is here. I believe creativity is not a zero sum game. There is plenty of creativity to be explored. In fact, I believe, creativity is infinite, there fore, creativity will coexist side by side among human and none human forms of intelligence. I hope this puts to bed any anxiety fine artists may have towards AI. 😊
Hey Igor, you should realize that by a devious and malevolent power grab, AI companies have stolen and are monetizing the sum of human experience in the arts to the detriment of young artists who had thought to be able to create a career out of making visual art or music. Many artists have studied and practiced for decades only now to realize that some corporate executives stole their work without proper payment or attribution. Further they find that the jobs they had or were hoping to get are being cut to zero by executives who would prefer to pay for a subscription service rather than pay salaries. I hope you realize your platitude means little. But you are right people will be making art as long as we have the wits to. We just won’t be able to make a living from it anymore.
Great perspective, Igor! I agree, I think that there is room for human creations, AI creations, and human-plus-AI creations :)
Yes, one aspect I did not discuss in this video and have only touched upon in other videos is the economic and ethical consequences of AI art. I agree it is an important concern, especially because AI has in many cases "created" works that very obviously ripped off existing artwork. If a human artist behaved in that way, they could be sued, and yet it seems like the AI companies are not being held accountable. Plus, as you note, it is taking away jobs from aspiring artists. This points to the broader issue of AI taking over many jobs across seemingly all sectors, raising the possibility of mass unemployment, which I don't think our society is prepared for.
Well, you are absolutely right, AI is a very controversial development for the ecosystem of today. Transitioning to AI based industrial sectors will have an impact on every aspect of human civilization. One thing which will may be going for the social structure is that, presumably, productivity will grow a one hundred fold, or so. Such is a good foundation for the enacting of the UBI (Universal Basic Income). This will not happen immediately, nevertheless, it is an inevitable path forward. So, maybe, not from the get go, nevertheless, basic human necessities will be covered by state. I’m sure, the transition to a new economical reality may have an undesirable and unpredictable impacts on the wellbeing of many, which is a very hard price to pay for the technological progress, which, at the end, may look like a utopian society, we can only read about in the sci-fi books, at the moment. Nevertheless, the chances of such developments are very high, in my point of view. However, I believe, a more pressing issue of today is how to stop the world from the constant and systematic bloodshed, as a result of numerous wars, where millions of innocent people die. This, seems to me, the only real obstacle on the road to the world’s economical progress, which must benefit humanity, as a whole.
Thanks for the video!
There is a beautiful novelette "For a Breath I Tarry" by Roger Zelazny, with a very similar topic.
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check it out! :)
AI excelling at games is very different from its ability to create art.. In games.. there are specific rules if you perform a certain action you achieve victory... But arts much more intricate it encompasses emotions, subjective styles, and personal experiences even struggles if you ask me... While AI can definitely produce beautiful and intricate artworks, it cannot replicate the unique touch of human creation... Each piece of art is inherently different, and even if a pro puts their level best effort to exactly mimic an artwork of another pro still it's never the same because we are different as individual..... That's my opinion 💚
Great Topic Btw, Cheers 💚
Yes, I agree! The personal emotions and experiences that humans put into art are what make it so powerful.
@christinakentart Yes Mam.
I'm also sure that connection with a human artist is the key for great art. AI can certainly cheat us. In my opinion, it can just fake. But if it fakes well the form, we do the rest with our human perceptions, feelings and interpretations. We look at clouds that no human made and we see people, animals, cathedrals, whatever... It's beautiful but it's a one way move. Obviously, art goes both ways and we still don't really know how it works. At this time, I'm just half worried.
That's true, I think we can get a lot out of art made by AI because we as humans are great at making meaning and telling stories.
Does genAI personally inspire your artistic process like in the ideation phase or do prefer doing everything start to finish?
I considered using genAI for inspiration, but I prefer to get inspired by my everyday experiences in the world. However I do think it can be a great tool for artists, and maybe I will use it in my process in the future.
I look at a piece if artwork to experience human emotion. Even if AI makes a pretty picture, that is all it is. No emotion, no soul. Why are humans so anxious to cancel out our own existence?
Yes, exactly! Without the human emotion, that human connection, there is an emptiness to the work.
AI is a tool, you have to know how to use it correctly so you can produce great things. If you give short instructions "draw a dog", then it's a coincidence what kind of image you get and it's probably not a very great image. If you can give the right input, such as sketches and precise instructions, and understand how to use the tool to combine styles, you can achieve great results. An example of creative activity is combining styles, for example to create abstract works, the results are creative and great in my opinion. What's new is the combination of different types of media, graphics, photography, 3D, video and sound - AI is developing rapidly in these areas.
I would also add that humans play a big role in producing images with AI tools, choosing and guiding, generating parts of the image, expanding, combining, choosing styles and image properties to create the desired end result, although AI can make a great image by chance, creating an image that is like the one you want requires expertise.
These are great points, and I agree, at this point AI is still very much guided by humans and they play a big role in shaping the work, somewhat like a photographer working with a camera. If it's done well, the human voice and vision are there in the final work.
Like so many things humans buy into, AI is easy and fast with the potential to make someone a lot of money. Kind of like fast food. I don’t think it is going away, there are people who will buy it and those who won’t. IMHO, it’s important to consider manual fine art a separate entity - it is not and should never be considered fine art.
Creativity is not technique- nor is creativity defined by novelty. Look out your window on any given day and you might see clouds in the sky- and each day you look those cloud patterns are unique- they never repeat- does this mean that the weather is being creative? No, of course not- those cloud patterns are the result of complex interactions in the climate that arise with no conscious intent.
So what about technique? A microchip requires the most delicate application of patterns engraved in silicon by machines of extraordianary precision, far in excess of any human ability- but does this flawless artifice make that microchip a work of Art? No, of course not.
Technique and novelty do not combine in some mysterious way to enable machines to be creative because both of these things are a consequnce of the creative impulse, they are not it's cause.
Creativity is one thing and one thing only-intent. Why do artists wish to display their work? Why galleries, why exhibitions? Why not make the work and when it's finished just throw it away? After all the creativity is in the making- is it not?
No- this is a false view. Creativity is like electricity, you need two poles in order for the current to flow. The reason that artists need to display their work is because until that work has been seen-has been recognised by another-THE WORK IS INCOMPLETE.
Knowing this we also know what creativity is, which is the desire to communicate something- an idea, a feeling, an aspiration- something. Machines have no such desires- the patterns they make do not arise from an intentional desire to communicate, they arise as the result of complex interactions within their programming, with no conscious intent.
Thus machines cannot be creative.
Creative, yes. Human, nope. Artistic? Depends on your definition of art.
It’s like mass producing pottery. There will never be the same look and feel as there is with a one-of-a-kind original piece with all of the marks and fingerprints. Sure AI could be algorithmed into even doing something close, but at that point, why bother?
I agree, I prefer the one-of-a-kind piece made by a real person!
Is it really intelligence? Is it really art? Is a banana and duct tape art? When AI can look outside the box and redefine art, maybe then I can become a believer. Pictorial art evolved with new ideas in perspective, materials, and frankly marketing to refine art, and isn't that, in the end what creativity is...
To add to my comment below, I’m still bothered by the fact that AI is literally copying existing art, not just copying the idea of something. I just wanted to clarify that I think it’s wrong, regardless of whether or not people accept it. Going to eat a homemade cookie now to calm down.
I agree, the extent of AI art that looks like outright copies of existing artists’ work is a big problem.
Creativy come from Experience and Emotion, a machine is incapable of that, IA is just a copy/paste machine
Maybe the machine win the game of go, maybe it can win every time (how boring if it can), but, did the machine enjoy it? because, well, when I take out my board, wining is a bonus, the best bonus ngl, but, the end game isn't winning, it's play. The same comes with art. I'm not interested on machines making art or being the best at playing go.
Great point, and some of the Go players mentioned similar sentiments in the documentary as well. They said it was much less about who won, and more about the emotional experience and the exchange between players, which is completely lost when one is playing against a machine. I think with art it is similar as well.
IMO the AI tools are still way too primitive. I think that reasonable prompting would be something like reverse art criticism.