I think you're conflating art as a process that humans engage in with art as a product that people consume. I think it would be more precise for you to say that, "AI can't replicate my artistic process because it isn't me, therefore my artistic process isn't threatened." This is different from whether or not art as a whole is threatened, or whether or not it can match human creativity in general, especially for people whose main source of income is art.
I think human creation of art is different from creativity where AI can't match the former because humans are identical with themselves by definition, but can match the latter because creativity doesn't depend on a substrate like the human brain. To say that human art creation isn't replicable as an activity because AI isn't human is sort of trivial in that sense. I think for people who depend on art for their income, AI is and will be a significant threat. This is important for a variety of reasons.
Two, I think the jury is out for how to account for the human mind, and to conclude that humans are special when it comes to any cognitive task presupposes a conclusion that we don't have evidence for yet. In fact, we have a whole history of creating things that perform the same task as human brains do without being biological.
Three, I think proving that it is impossible to replicate human creativity with technology would be a pretty consequential result in biology, computer science, and philosophy because of what it would imply about cognition.
Finally, art is many things, and AI will transform it in many ways that are consequential beyond just our enjoyment of creating it, because art has functional roles in civilization. I think we should seriously consider whether that's an outcome humanity wants beyond just whether or not it personally affects a given individual.
I think you're making my point for me—which is that AI will only pose a threat to art if we, as a culture and a society, fail to appreciate what distinguishes *art* from *content*. If we fail to see why human expression itself is valuable, and why the product of that expression offers us something no AI can ever provide, then yeah, AI will fuck all of us.
But even then, the problem isn't AI. It's us. We've been happily gorging on the artistic version of junk food forever. Pop music has always been mass-produced cookie-cutter content that we passively consume.
So what will we do? Will we learn to appreciate the inherent humanity and beauty of creative expression, or will we be satisfied with mindless content than can be produced in seconds by an algorithm? The choice is ours.
Here you're really getting to Benjamin's discussion of aura in the age of mechanical reproduction. But I argue that aura is made even more important, not less, even if all lines are blurred. Can technology have achievement entirely without aura or can technology have aura too. Kind of the soul argument, does AI have a soul.
The only way for AI to "replace" human creativity is for the AI itself to have a conscious experience, where it can absorb the world around it, process it, and then create something that reflects its feelings about it. And once that becomes possible, it'll just be another kind of conscious being that's able to create art.
And it wouldn't be a threat to humans creating art because it'll never have any perspective besides its own—just like Bruce Springsteen will never be Prince, and Prince will never be Whitney Houston.
I think it has a primitive consciousness. But it cannot eat, cannot touch, cannot feel the pavement or the wind. Developments will change this. It will face even luddite destruction, or shift the tide and be protected and beloved. I think to true artists, not even just the super great ones it won’t be a threat at all. Thanks for writing.
I think you're conflating art as a process that humans engage in with art as a product that people consume. I think it would be more precise for you to say that, "AI can't replicate my artistic process because it isn't me, therefore my artistic process isn't threatened." This is different from whether or not art as a whole is threatened, or whether or not it can match human creativity in general, especially for people whose main source of income is art.
I think human creation of art is different from creativity where AI can't match the former because humans are identical with themselves by definition, but can match the latter because creativity doesn't depend on a substrate like the human brain. To say that human art creation isn't replicable as an activity because AI isn't human is sort of trivial in that sense. I think for people who depend on art for their income, AI is and will be a significant threat. This is important for a variety of reasons.
One, our standards for what counts as art worthy of consumption are pretty low at this point. See this article https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-36391761
Two, I think the jury is out for how to account for the human mind, and to conclude that humans are special when it comes to any cognitive task presupposes a conclusion that we don't have evidence for yet. In fact, we have a whole history of creating things that perform the same task as human brains do without being biological.
Three, I think proving that it is impossible to replicate human creativity with technology would be a pretty consequential result in biology, computer science, and philosophy because of what it would imply about cognition.
Finally, art is many things, and AI will transform it in many ways that are consequential beyond just our enjoyment of creating it, because art has functional roles in civilization. I think we should seriously consider whether that's an outcome humanity wants beyond just whether or not it personally affects a given individual.
I think you're making my point for me—which is that AI will only pose a threat to art if we, as a culture and a society, fail to appreciate what distinguishes *art* from *content*. If we fail to see why human expression itself is valuable, and why the product of that expression offers us something no AI can ever provide, then yeah, AI will fuck all of us.
But even then, the problem isn't AI. It's us. We've been happily gorging on the artistic version of junk food forever. Pop music has always been mass-produced cookie-cutter content that we passively consume.
So what will we do? Will we learn to appreciate the inherent humanity and beauty of creative expression, or will we be satisfied with mindless content than can be produced in seconds by an algorithm? The choice is ours.
We, as humans, can be wrong and still move the creative process forward. Can AI, as the creature of algorithms, ever be wrong.
I think AI is wrong a lot already!
AI is created in our image. Imperfections are the fault of humans.
Here you're really getting to Benjamin's discussion of aura in the age of mechanical reproduction. But I argue that aura is made even more important, not less, even if all lines are blurred. Can technology have achievement entirely without aura or can technology have aura too. Kind of the soul argument, does AI have a soul.
So far, nope.
The only way for AI to "replace" human creativity is for the AI itself to have a conscious experience, where it can absorb the world around it, process it, and then create something that reflects its feelings about it. And once that becomes possible, it'll just be another kind of conscious being that's able to create art.
And it wouldn't be a threat to humans creating art because it'll never have any perspective besides its own—just like Bruce Springsteen will never be Prince, and Prince will never be Whitney Houston.
I think it has a primitive consciousness. But it cannot eat, cannot touch, cannot feel the pavement or the wind. Developments will change this. It will face even luddite destruction, or shift the tide and be protected and beloved. I think to true artists, not even just the super great ones it won’t be a threat at all. Thanks for writing.
Thanks for reading!
Of course! Very much enjoyed your writing. :)