In my most recent essay, I discussed an author who gathered photographs for a promotional website by using a variant of the artificial intelligence (AI) art technique known as Stable Diffusion. She wanted sexual and violent aspects to be included into the artwork, but she discovered that existing AI painting programs had “guardrails” that limited access to graphic outcomes. However, if these pictures are not the product of a human being using their imagination, then how can we conclude that the works that AI generates are creative? The concept of what it is to be human is not the only thing that is called into question by artificial intelligence. In addition to this, it causes us to ponder what it means to create art and whether or not humans are the only creatures capable of doing so.
Since artificial intelligence is being used more and more, it makes sense that real artists would feel threatened and wronged. If a computer program can produce works of art, then it would seem that the whole creative process is in jeopardy. The question now is, “How should we react?”
The fact that a particular work of art was created by a human intellect is, to my opinion, what gives it its inherent sense of intrigue. When it is at its most effective, art—regardless of whether it is lyrical, narrative, or visual—establishes a line of communication between the creator and the audience, or between two different selves. It’s possible that AI-generated visuals seem very great, but the fact that there’s no human mind behind them gives them a cold and detached vibe. If art isn’t about people, I question whether it can even be called “art.”
During a discussion that took place in 2018 in Cambridge between Roger Scruton, a distinguished British philosopher of aesthetics, and Jordan Peterson, a Canadian psychologist, Peterson made a comment along these lines. The theme of the discussion was “approaching transcendence.” Scruton argued against the notion that, in order to encounter the transcendent, one must first rise above the realm of experience and explain how nature “communicates” with humans. In my opinion, this is what the most successful works of art, literature, and music accomplish.
The art created by AI is just “there.” It is the item that does not move. Because there is no thought behind it to transmit anything, there is not actually anything being communicated to the spectator as a result of this.
My opinion is that artificial intelligence technology can impress with its sophistication (which was designed by humans), but it will never be able to boast of the distinguishing feature of the human mind, which is the capacity to communicate with other selves and not just communicate, but also commune with them.