← Back to context

Comment by tmountain

1 day ago

Art is a reaction to life. AI is thereby incapable of producing anything with any degree of authenticity unless it conveys the experience of being an agent to the world.

4 comments

tmountain

Reply
avmich  1 day ago

Two comments here.

First, "AI is thereby incapable" is a hypothesis, not a fact - how would you prove that you have to "live" to produce art? You might feel this way, you may suggest some correlations here - but can you really prove that?

Second, I don't see impossibility for AI to be - to various degrees - an agent to the world. I think that's already happening actually - they are interacting with world even today, in some limited sense, through our computers and networks, and - today - not many of them actually "learn" from those interactions. But we're in the early days of this - I suspect.

ACCount37  1 day ago

What is AI if not "a reaction to life"?

With how much data goes into the frontier systems, and how much of it gets captured by them, an AI might have, in many ways, a richer grasp of human experience than the humans themselves do.

You were only ever one human. An LLM has skimmed from millions. You have seen a tree, and the AI has seen the forest it stands in.

  • tmountain  15 hours ago

    It’s a subjective conversation but putting AI in the same category as a real artist is like saying someone that’s played a ton of first person shooters has gone to war. It might have a lot of observed information about what is involved in living, but real art comes from a lived experience, just like reading about going to Hawaii doesn’t mean you’ve been to Hawaii. Making something authentic requires synthesizing your life experience with the message you want to convey, and personalizing it in a way that puts an imprint of yourself into the work. Sure, it can render beautiful imagery, but I am speaking to a different issue entirely, and I don’t see any way that it can create in the way I am describing.