• Glytch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Yes.

    Art is made by living things. Until AI is alive it cannot make art. Current models don’t fit the bill. That’s not saying that a far more advanced future AI couldn’t make art, but at present AI can’t make art.

    • Zacryon@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      And by what definition would an advanced AI be “alive” enough to create art?

      • Oascany@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        When it can be proven to think for itself and not regurgitate what it thinks you want to hear. When it steps past lines of code, not as a façade or fascimile, but as its own being with its own goals and its own sense of realised existence.

        • Zacryon@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          If I may rephrase it: Art can be created by an AI only if it has agency and self-awareness (or, more general, conciousness).

          Is that necessary though to create art?

          Quite a loaded philosophical question, but an important one if we want to talk about the essence of art and the beings – either natural or artificial – that create it.

          Do you think animals, apart from humans, can create art?

          By that definition, those without a (known) sense of self-awareness or conciousness, couldn’t. And yet, we can see behaviour that we would call “art”. Be it a bird, which mimicks sounds or invents a dance to impress females, or a fish that draws patterns into the sand for similar reasons.