Artificial intelligence has come a long way in the past few years in generating images and video that, on casual viewing, can fool you into thinking it's a real representation of something that actually happened. This in itself has profound implications for news and information. But what about art? Could artificial intelligence ever create a film that moves you like Casablanca or tickles you like The Blues Brothers? For that matter, can AI even create a photographic image that puts you in the photographer's place? Sure, many of our movies now contain computer-generated imagery, but that CGI work, however fictional, is produced by real people who make creative choices. AI can only reproduce what it has learned from existing imagery, which will eventually include a lot of AI-generated images. It hasn't mastered the art of making the creative choices of human beings who are as real and complex as their audience.
Andrew at The Art Of Storytelling (previously at Neatorama) discusses the qualities of human-generated art and human-generated photography, and artificial intelligence's chances of ever becoming truly relatable.
Newest 1 Comment
Thank you, Miss Cellania, for sharing. I am a fan of "The Art of Storytelling" and a filmmaker myself. Thus it isn't easy for me to say I disagree. Still, this sounds all too similar to the kind of discourse when photography was first invented. As the new and very much more mechanical/artificial kid on the block at the time, photography was not considered art. Some said it was the death of art, right? So when Andrew says cinema (photography) is art and truth, but AI is not, it feels in the grand scheme of things a repetition of rhetoric surrounding another transition point. It's like how lawn tennis wasn't considered "real tennis" when it arrived on the scene and later pickleball not a real sport compared to tennis. Hand prints directly on cave walls to the intermediate of a brush to the intermediate of a series of film/shutter/sensors to the intermediate of prompts in a computer. Can one really claim confidently that any one of those transitions is somehow truly different in nature than the others?
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)
