We Are the Artist: Generative AI and the Future of Art

Couldn't attend Transform 2022? Check out all the summit sessions in our on-demand library now! Look here.

Before writing a single word of this article, I created the image above using a new type of AI software that produces "generative illustrations". The process took about 15 minutes and did not involve paints or canvas. I simply typed in a few lines of text to describe the image I wanted: a robot holding a brush and standing in front of an easel.

After a few iterations, tweaks and revisions, I got a result I'm happy with. To me, the image above is an awesome original piece of art. After all, it captures the imagination and evokes an emotional response that feels no less authentic than human art.

Does this mean that AI is now as creative and evocative as human artists?

No.

Event

MetaBeat 2022

MetaBeat will bring together thought leaders to advise on how metaverse technology will transform the way all industries communicate and do business on October 4 in San Francisco, CA.

register here

Generative AI systems are not creative at all. In fact, they have no real intelligence. Sure, I typed in a request for an image of a robot holding a brush, but the AI ​​system had no real understanding of what a "robot" actually is or a brush". He created the artwork using a complex statistical process that correlates the images with the words and phrases in the prompt.

The results resemble human works of art, as the system was trained on millions of human artifacts (drawings, paintings, prints, photos), most of which were likely captured from the internet. I'm not saying these systems aren't impressive. The technology is truly amazing and profoundly useful. It's just not "creative" in the same way humans think of creativity.

After all, the AI ​​system didn't sense anything while creating the artwork. He also failed to take into account the emotional response he hoped to evoke in the viewer. It did not appeal to any inherent artistic sensibility. Essentially, he didn't do anything a human artist would. Still, he created a remarkable work.

The image below is another example of a robot holding a brush that was generated during my 15 minute session. Although not chosen for use at the top of this article, I find it to be deeply compelling work, imbued with an undeniable sentiment:

Generative Robot (Image created by author using Midjourney)

If AI isn't the artist, then who is?

If we consider the above pieces to be original works of art, who was the artist? It certainly wasn't me. All I did was enter a text prompt and make a variety of choices and reviews. At best, I was a collaborator. Nor was the artist the software, which has no understanding of what it has created and possesses no ability to think or feel. So who was the artist?

My view is that we all created the work of art - humanity itself.

I believe that we should consider humanity as the reference artist. I'm not just talking about the people who are alive today, but all the people who have contributed to the millions of creative artifacts on which generative AI systems are trained.

It's not just the countless human artists who have had their original works vacuumed up and destroyed...