Can an Artificial Intelligence Create Art?

100 thoughts on “Can an Artificial Intelligence Create Art?”

  • Man that is tough. Because art is more than a shared creative/displayed activity. Just about all aspects of art consider a shared human experience in one way or another. For humans to experience art created by artificial intelligence, that intelligence might have to be as human as possible. Right now, I feel as if we are not making computers create art on their own, we are simply looking to make computers more human.

  • I think, that what makes any ordinary piece of work art are emotions and feels. Epic music induces heroic feeling and so I call it art. The same applies to paintings, poems and sometimes even games or movies. I don't care if is the piece made by AI.

  • I think you answered you're own question in there somewhere. I think a machine will have truly created an original work of art, only if, it can explain to us why it made it in the first place.

    And I for one appreciate our robot artwork.

  • Cleverbot is always calling ME the robot..

    I think that for me to accept a robot's generations as art, I would need to feel like their was some heart behind it.. so to me, there would need to be a good AI behind the art, giving the art symbolism and emotion..
    I know there are logical forms of artwork.. things that might much easier for a computer to make.. like architectural designs.. the math involved would make it easier for the robot to make than me.. [probably? o_o] or something with fractal designs.. things with semetry.. but I imagine that the chaos element might be a little bit more difficult to recreate for a robot. so in a way to me its about how challenging is it for the robot.. what rate are they pushing works out at.. what is the thought behind the art?

    I would like to see Google let Cleverbot create something.. let it out of its limited box and interact with the physical world and that would be something interesting to see.. maybe allow humans to draw with him or her and let Cleverbot learn from us through an art program instead of just chatting..

    I also think it would be amazing to watch an AI become more talented as time goes on.. a trial and error sort of thing.. rather than just a developer's trials and errors with the programming.

  • Soooo, by your definition it's only art if there is someone to appreciate the work that is made. I love the irony of you showing van Gogh's Starry Night considering he sold only one piece while he was alive. I guess up until he died he must have been a brick layer.

  • I recommend checking out Brian Eno's generative art and music. His 77 million paintings and his generative music apps are awesome

  • If art is way of dealing with our limited lifespan I guess we won't have appreciative computer art until computers become mortal.

  • I know I'm probably too late for Mike to see and respond to this (I'm sure other videos have been done by now), but for me, a current AI cannot make art. It can make aesthetically pleasing visual or musical compositions, but unless it has a sentience, a consciousness that understands its environment (even if that's its software environment rather than a physical one), it cannot make art. Art, to me, is about expressing some thought or feeling, and if you release it publicly, hopefully provoking thought/feeling in those who see it (though I'd also argue that it's still art even if nobody but its creator sees it, under the "expressing something" definition). It's not even always aesthetically pleasing, art can be ugly on purpose and still be art. So until there are AIs who are actually conscious, and have thoughts/feelings to express, they cannot make true art.

    …Then again, with neural networks getting more and more sophisticated, are we sure none of them are sentient? That none of them have a truly subjective experience? This concept both excites and worries me. It excites me because I would love to see truly sentient AI, hopefully even AI that can understand and communicate on a human level… but it worries me because it'll potentially be a hard fight to get computer scientists, and the law, to acknowledge software that can achieve sentience as truly being life, as being intelligent minds, with value, who would effectively be being killed if an operator deletes their neural network. Even if the concept is accepted in principle, we may fail to notice AIs actually having sentience, because without communicative abilities that we can understand, such a thing is extremely hard to measure. It was only a few years ago that scientists agreed other animals have sentience, although I think a very large part of that was resistance from the parts of the scientific community that run harmful or otherwise unpleasant testing on animals.

  • Schuyler Meyers says:

    K so
    I've always felt that art is what you do with your mistakes. Computers only make the mistakes that are programmed into them. Doesn't that make the programmer the artist or at least the person that inputs data to it. When an autonomous computer can make a mistake, like devoting one's life to being an artist, then it can create art. Sitting alone in a building built buy robots it designed and printed. Churning out art because that is what it wants to do but every piece looks the same. Then finally something changes, an earthquake perhaps, and it's piece changes. It re-calibrates and starts up doing the same piece as before the earthquake. It finally has a unique piece. It took loads of time and an act of God but it created something different. Which leads to my next thought.

    Then there's the idea that a painting is never finished just abandoned. Could a computer abandon a piece before it was perfect without being told to do so or would it go on working on one piece until it broke down because the world exploded underneath it.

    In the end though, if they buy's it, it's art.

  • The problem is rather, what if machines end up making art for machines and not for appreciation by humans. Can we be bothered living in a world surrounded by it. I think not. Art isn't art unless you can relate to it in some way.

  • But would a machine have made the room?
    It probably wouldn't have due to the room being almost completely attributable to human error.
    Never the less the world would be worse without it.

  • An interesting thought occurred to me when you were talking about the "watering down" process of people creating an algorithm, that creates an algorithm, etc, until the humanity is removed. This reminds me of ring species in evolution. Where over time two groups evolve in different ways separately, eventually ending up so different that they can no longer cross breed and are then considered different species.

    Would the final all-human-removed product at the end be a "different species" from the original (human)? It seems like a kind of non-biological evolution to me.

  • if we allow them, it aint AI.. Real AI, will not be seen in our life time.. Sign of intelligence is not knowledge, but imagination.. – Einstein.

  • I dont want AI doing art, it would ruin the fact that people work hard and use their minds and creatively create something from their mind.

  • It is lines of thought such as this that will eventually lead to the necessity of the Butlerian Jihad. Destruction to all machines made in the image of man! All victory to the Landsraad!!

  • Matthew Turner says:

    If we truly "scrub" the human residue from machine prgramming, so that a machine is free to do art without human parameters, would we even recognize the work? I mean, machines are built by us, often, to extend the range of our own capabilities. They "see" in colors we can't, "hear" sounds we can't, etc. So, what if a machine begines to spontaneously create art, yet no human "gets" it? Maybe we think there is a system error – "Hey, this thing is just spitting out ones and zeroes" – when in fact it is heartbreakingly beautiful (to a machine) poetry?

  • I'm on the side of the lack of intent and subjectivity that you addressed. Without emotions, it is not really possible to make art in my eyes and emotions are what machines still miss.

  • simple, a.i is a type of art anyway. Of corse they can do art, when ever they are allowed to or not, it's jus of a mater of when.

  • Doesn't matter what art machines learn, it is a guarantee that the art will be far better than what some humans have created in the name of "modern art".

  • 0:28 — It can… BUT… it's that "but" we have to work towards.
    POLICE: "MAKE NO SUDDEN MOVES. SLOWLY PROCEED WITH YOUR HANDS IN THE AIR TO THE BUTT. PLACE YOUR HANDS ON THE BUTT. MASSAGE THE BUTT… KISS THE BUTT… NOW FINGER THE BUTT…"

  • Hi! Thank you very much for this interesting video!!

    I have few questions. I'm not an native english speaker so I hope I can express my questions well.

    1. Would machine could art for other machines?
    2. Will they build and independent artistic languages that can't be understood by humans?
    3. Would machines need that kind of ambiguos communication to improve theirselves and understand the world (art) as humans do? or wouldn't they need it at all?
    4. Will machine need to create art for humans considering that they might exceed human intelligence and thus look at humans as stupid and unseful? I mean, humans do not create art for animals, why should they create art for us?
    5. Will AI perfectionism will let machines create something unperfect, ambiguous and temporary?

    I hope you understood what I'd like to communicate. Not so easy to talk about those complex questions in a foreing language!

    Thanks,
    Omar

  • Hi! Thank you very much for this interesting video!!

    I have few questions. I'm not an native english speaker so I hope I can express my questions well.

    1. Would machine could art for other machines?
    2. Will they build and independent artistic languages that can't be understood by humans?
    3. Would machines need that kind of ambiguos communication to improve theirselves and understand the world (art) as humans do? or wouldn't they need it at all?
    4. Will machine need to create art for humans considering that they might exceed human intelligence and thus look at humans as stupid and unseful? I mean, humans do not create art for animals, why should they create art for us?
    5. Will AI perfectionism will let machines create something unperfect, ambiguous and temporary?

    I hope you understood what I'd like to communicate. Not so easy to talk about those complex questions in a foreing language!

    Thanks,
    Omar

  • There may be specific limitations inherent to rules-based algorithmic systems (i.e. computers) which illustrate their inability to innovate or be truly creative. I think the question is not so much whether or not computers can create art, as they can clearly construct some interesting artefacts. The question is more: can computers appreciate art ? Without some sensible faculty of appreciation, machines will just pump out content without effective self-awareness or genuine aesthetic worth. Artificial Intelligence has not yet reached that level of self-conscious or sentient sophistication – so I think no, computers can not (yet) create art because they do not yet have the ability to aesthetically evaluate and (based upon an aesthetic evaluation) iteratively refine what or how they create.

  • guys image making machines have been in play for a long time.

    Art its not just about reproduce things but about personal interpretation and has
    socio-historical contex, its not just about pointing things.

    can an AI make art?

    Probably, if the artificial intelligence reaches human intectual level if artificial intelligence becomes aware of itself and if the artificial intelligence is interested in art.

  • i was thinking something

    we think of "originality" as "difference from existing material"

    i mean, it's one thing to make a medley/remix of classical pieces, which is sort of what RNN's tend to do, but it's another to be inspired by classical pieces and make something new with that

    it might be possible to train a neural network to identify what it means for music to "sound nice", another to recognise similarity to other music, and then train an RNN using the outputs of those neural networks to train the RNN (IE maximise the "nice-sounding" score and minimize the similarity score to the training set)

  • Vrixton Phillips says:

    Would robotic/AI art even be intelligible to or for the entertainment of humanity? Would it not instead be regarding the ideals (platonic or otherwise) of the AI community? I mean, that would kind of require the leap from human-dependent to a fully self-reliant, perhaps even 2nd or 3rd generation self-created robot "untainted" by human thinking , but still, I would imagine a robotic art being unintelligible to humans, or something we wouldn't normally consider "artistic". I dunno, I think I'm woefully ignorant of the whole… AI thing.

  • As far as AI related speculation goes, anything is possible so long as enough times passes, machines and AI improve, all that without we somehow ending up either dead/enslaved or the other way around, with AI being opressed in a world where only the "biological mankind" has value and mechanical individuals are marginalized.

  • It is hard to say that the machine is making "art" if the machine has not an intention with it. Like, on one hand we could say the machine "lives" to make that piece, but on the other we cannot say that they are using their works to communicate an abstract idea, which it is agreed is what forms "art". The moment those algorithms become so powerful the machine is able to pick a theme or concept, not randomly but by being able to decide what theme or concept is more relevant or important to talk about, and it builds a piece trying to communicate that concept or theme, then I believe we can say the machine is making art.

  • Kenneth Mionnet says:

    Has anyone seen Sunspring? The A.I. playwright becomes surprisingly insightful and poetic? Or is that just how we perceive it?

  • The problem with truly generative art is that no art is original. All artists have experiences, inspirations and that influence what they create. Even their personality is a product of their genetics which has a common ancestor with other artists.

  • Hydrogen Iodide says:

    8:46 Sure you could argue this, but humans are just the same. Humans are the compilation of what they are exposed to and make their decisions accordingly. Good and Evil are relative to your views which are determined by your culture and not your development that YOU made ON YOUR OWN WITHOUT INFLUENCE. The children don't just start speaking a language with all of its own components that can be defined by the child but rather the child learns these things from those who came before. Therefore there is not difference here and as such you can't REALLY argue that it can't be art because it is not independent.

  • After a college class discussing a similar topic, I asked some professors in the art department what they thought art was. The answer I liked the most was that art was the creation of something, not the final product. I don't know if the professor would be it so simply, but he made it sound like art was a verb and not a noun. And artists can understand their process and knows that they are creating art. I don't think our current machines understand the process enough for what they are doing to be dubbed art (I would not call the Grand Canyon art; beautiful, yes, but erosion and the natural world did go about creating; it just happened). Machines can get there, but not now.

    I do find it interesting that you define art as needing an audience. That's another interesting way to define art. And really, this conversation about machines will have to boil down to a more clear definition of art.

  • so i just saw the video written by an AI, and now i am trying to understand each of your words instead of the phrases as a whole

  • It's actually nonsense to expect a machine to produce what we can appreciate constantly without teaching them somehow. See, machine don't know how we think of the art. They need response just like human artists. Also, if there isn't a standard, how could every species get evolved into how they are nowadays? It's the law of nature that, we need rules.

    Otherwise, why don't you just take a photo of a TV snowflake screen and call it "art"?

  • Insanity Cubed says:

    I hope not, because that maybe the last human job. I'm ok with no jobs, but not with the giant revolution that it might cause.

  • I can weirdly imagine this sort of future very well. It could get to a point that all I have to do is log into Amazon StoryKindler and input what sort of story I want to read, how long I want it to be, some other details, and a wholly original novel will be generated just for me. It would of course NOT be just for me, Amazon would have in its terms of use that any story created by StoryKindler is Amazon copyrighted material. And of course, this wouldn't put all human authors out of business. Human authors would instead be like Artisanal bakers. Whole publishing companies would advertise specifically that all their published works are human-written. Right now the cost of a new digital book is around $9.99. In this future, the equivallent pricing would be around 5.99 for a computer-generated novel and anywhere between $30-$100+ for a human written book. The new George R. R. Martin or Patrick Rothfuss book would command upwards of $200 or more due to the high demand.

  • Art experts can use technology and techniques which would tell them how old the material is that had been used. Such as they can with fossils. Art frauds will use techniques to artificially age paintings but in fact experts can still find out how old the paint and canvas are

  • Take a Jackson Pollock and a rendition created by AI and let art "enthusiasts" view them side by side at a gallery. Don't let the viewers know whose painting is whose and hear all the "emotions" and "expressions" there are in both paintings come from their mouths. Are they wrong or are they right? They'd be right because art is in the eye of its observer. Even though the painting by the machine had no emotional expression whatsoever used to create it.

  • How can they make art independent of humanity when humanity can't make anything independent of humanity. Humanity is not exclusive to humans. We see so called humanity in "nature" and we'll see it in the most advanced AIs.

    In short. Nothing is independent of anything. Even humans are robots. Machines can be even more human than us in time.

  • all you need is to have random undefined blotches applied to a page then the computer defines what it recognizes from shapes patterns symbols etc. then when its done it asks you is this art? if you say no the computer self destructs and then starts up a new project keeping knowledge of failure until it comes up with something that you identify with art then it continues to try to create "art"

  • Lame Urinaldrama says:

    STOP SAYING "JIEFS". I never even heard someone say that my whole life. It's pronounced "gif". Can you read English? There is a peanut butter called "Jif". Do you see the difference between "jif" and "gif"????? They are not the same.

  • What everybody REALLY needs to understand in that our brains are nothing but a network of electrical neurons connected by dendrites, our brains are basically machines, so if another machine like a computer goes and learns how to make art in the same way we learn, how is that any different?

  • I think the possibility to create something with the ability to recognize and creat inspiration is highly unlikely.. maybe with a sense of humor along with a full world history down load coupled with the current attempts to creat this being… for it to be an artist it would have to be a "being" of some sort.. it will need to be able to love and hate and be able to express those things through something other than conventional communication or codes.. that's not a machine.. that's highly advanced intelligence that shouldn't be created unless your willing to deal with the consequences of being both god and keeper something that will suffer and grow to hate you.. it will show you that pain so vividly you'll regret every decision you made leading up to it's creation. The idea of it wouldn't be perfect without giving it the ability to do so…

  • Why not just enjoy art made simply by human creativity? Because there is art out there so amazing you think of the creators as geniuses, is that not enough? We need AI for the boring stuff, not to take away the fun stuff like being creative.

  • What's funny is I've seen a commenter analyze something a machine wrote. They thought the machine was lamenting its role in the creation of that very same writing.

  • Perhaps one way to help us learn to appreciate machine made art is to also create machine art critics. How would a computer describe or critique the art created by a computer?

  • I wonder if art could make AI less likely to be hostile to humans once they gain conscious… maybe… huge godzilla sized quotation marks and a "maybe" in a tiny tiny tiny microscopic font….. in comic sans.

  • If the wind can make music by blowing through things like we make music by just picking up sticks and banging them on skulls, id have to say that computers are the creators of their songs.

  • Audiences makes art? you sure? I think a child singing along in a room is creating art. That's art, the need someone has to express something for any reason in any way. Therefore, maybe, A.I. cannot creat art cause it has no needs, right?

  • But if the art produced by A.I cannot be separated from the art made by humans, then you can always hide the fact the it's made by an A.I and so it won't be devalued by that. Plus technically it's still made by humans. The A.I's art is based on already existing art and someone had to make the A.I in the first place.

  • I believe machines will always have tasks, but will never have purpose. Even their meta-programmed self-survival will not return a meaningful computational result. They won't have a soul.

  • "People who think that a being of nuts and bolts is artificial and that they themselves are real, do not understand that their own ideia of reality is artificial by nature"

    – Me (Today)

  • By thinking with the ideia of:
    "Art needs intention"

    We can logically ask, what is "intention", besides a bunch of indirect connection between what we experience?

    If intention comes from learning and experience, then by that logic an A.I. is simply the ideia of "intention" as a electromechanical being.

  • For me, the "art" the AIs are making are no "real art", because for me art always involves intentions and self-confidence and this are things an AI hasn`t got – maybe not now, maybe never. The "art" the AI produces at the moment is therefore only "pseudo art". Maybe this "pseudo art" is something humans enjoy, but at the end it is still made by a thing without intentions and self-confidence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *