When artificial intelligence first became a real possibility in science in the late 1950s, it was hard for the public to not imagine a near future with flying cars that drive themselves or robots that save the world. Now it’s the year 2023, and instead of fixing things like climate change, we’re stuck “doom-scrolling” through a bunch of “AI selfies” taken with the Lensa app. Siri, Alexa, and even face recognition that unlocks your phone with the help of AI are all useful parts of modern life. However, the latest buzz about AI-generated art is happening despite the fact that it has no purpose. Perhaps more crucially, it is devoid of soul. So, why are the vibes with AI art so off?
While I am confident that AI art is here to stay, I am not expecting to see anything “excellent” anytime soon. I believe this is because we are still in the early phases and the medium is not yet only a means to an end, but the goal in itself. I’m sure some intriguing work will emerge once people learn the technology.
If we can imagine a painter in the 1500s moaning at the prospect of having to make a successfully airbrushed painting of someone royal and renowned, it raises the question: Is AI art so lifeless because we’re such horrible, unimaginative, and demanding commissioners? That is, the present soullessness of AI is also the fault of the humans who created the algorithms. I believe that what makes art wonderful is not the fact that it was created by a person, but rather the concept that inspired it. I can’t wait to see what AI-generated art they’ll come up with if algorithms can be created by an intelligent person with solid ideas. The issue arises when the individuals who create such algorithms are disinterested in art.