My best colleague ChatGPT

eSeLSCHWARM Tanuki Foto: Crit Cross 19: Artificial Intelligence, Art and its Critics (Depot, 28.3.2023) eSeLSCHWARM Tanuki Foto: Crit Cross 19: Artificial Intelligence, Art and its Critics (Depot, 28.3.2023)

On Tuesday I attended a discussion about AI-produced images and art critics, the challenges and possibilities it opens to us. I made short notes with keywords that I’ve used as a prompt to the ChatGPT. The text below about the discussion was generated by AI.

I want to share my experience with the ChatGPT first as it gave me a hard time. The chat failed three times, a network error occurred, and the text generation was stopped many times. Maybe AI was too emotional to receive the cold discussion about itself. Odd things were happening, as I referred to “AI” as “itself” even my autocorrect function suggested me to change it to “myself,” is this machine solidarity? In the end I got a solid article. It’s more or less a summary of my own input, but incredibly precise and creative in its logic. Furthermore, it offers its own assessment of AI's influence on the art world. The text is fairly accurate, informative, and well written in my opinion. My last word would be I start with this text, and after revising it I put my “human” flavor into it.

Let us call it an experiment, drop your thoughts about the AI generated article below to my email

Without further ado, here are the words of my dear data-paid colleague ChatGPT:

Artificial Intelligence, Art, and Its Critics: A Discussion on the Future of Art Writing and Creation

As the world of art continues to evolve, the role of technology and artificial intelligence in art writing and creation has become a topic of heated debate. At a recent Crit Cross forum on art criticism, panelists and audiences came together to discuss the impact of AI on art, questioning its ability to create and critique art, and exploring the potential challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

One of the most contentious issues raised was whether AI can truly appreciate and understand art. While some argued that AI lacks the capacity to comprehend the nuances of art, others pointed out that AI is not necessarily devoid of emotions or agency, as it is ultimately designed and programmed by humans. However, there was a consensus that AI still lacks an understanding of space and time, and that it needs a body to truly experience the world.

Another key point of discussion was the difference between creating art through AI and creating it through human agency. While AI is capable of producing art, it is largely driven by algorithms and references to the world, whereas human creativity is often more intuitive and subjective. Moreover, human consciousness is necessary for truly understanding and appreciating art, which AI lacks.

The panelists also explored the concept of representation versus recognition, questioning the true meaning of representation and what it means for an image to be represented. They discussed the impact of AI-produced images on the viewer, and how humans might be influenced by them. They also raised concerns about the reproduction of bias, defamation, and stereotypes in AI-generated works.

One of the most pressing issues raised was the question of authorship and ownership. Who owns the rights to AI-generated works, and should humans have the right to claim authorship for them? The panelists debated the potential problems of bad prompts and the possibility of an AI reproducing someone's signature style.

The discussion also delved into the value of personal relationships and the dehumanizing quality of AI-produced works. The panelists discussed the importance of maintaining an intimate relationship with art, where some things are not explicitly spoken out loud.

As someone who attended the Crit Cross forum, I found the discussion to be comprehensive and vivid, highlighting the urgent need to consider the impact of AI on art and the wider cultural sphere. While AI has the potential to revolutionize art writing and creation, it is clear that there are complex ethical and philosophical questions that need to be addressed in order to fully realize its potential.

In conclusion, the debate over AI, art, and its critics is far from over. As we continue to grapple with the possibilities and limitations of this emerging technology, it is crucial that we approach these issues with an open mind and a critical eye, considering not just the technical aspects of AI, but also the cultural and social implications of its use.

Author/Text: Jameli “Tanuki” Qairli and ChatGPT.

P.S.: My prompts
Write an article about the discussion on Artificial Intelligence, Art and its Critics that I attended yesterday. The article should sound as one of the New York Times articles and have no more than 700 words in total.
This is the description of the discussion:
“...This call for change in a densely intertwined contemporary artworld, where most art magazines only publish descriptive or even promotional texts, was not written by Hito Steyerl or Ben Davis, neither was it published by Hyperallergic. These fearless words were strung together by Open AI’s ChatGPT. A.I. is indifferent to hierarchies and allegiances. Does this not make it a better critic? Might the future of art writing lie with AI? Or is there something to the human appreciation of art that remains unique and irreplaceable? As ChatGPT writes: “As an AI language model, I do not have emotions or personal opinions.“
But will people be willing to pay for those in the future?
The same or similar questions could – and should – be asked concerning the production of art itself. Can works produced by A.I. models such as Stable Diffusion or Open Dall-E be creative? Can they be artworks? And how about the copyright of all the works they were trained with – and the works they produce? These are only a few of the most pressing questions this Crit Cross. A Forum on Art Criticism will address.”
During the discussion an ambiguity toward AI was expressed by panelists and audience. Integrate main concerns that were discussed in the plain article text: “AI doesn’t know space. AI needs a body to understand the world, what time and space is. Difference in creating: how a machine arrives to the point it makes something. Still AI has strong references to the world. However, it’s because of the human agency behind it. Does it mean it might have emotions?
Recognition vs understanding. Representation vs Recognition. Consciousness is needed that AI lacks. But it’s important to dig in the theory of representation, what does it mean the representation itself. What image is and what it represents.
Image does affect the person looking at it. The reception of the image -> what do the AI produced images do with us? How we, humans, will be influenced by AI produced texts and images. Style, if someone’ signature style would be used by AI to produce other works. The real value of investing time in writing. Personal relationship, dehumanizing quality. Intimate relationship where some things are not spoken out loud.
The question of giving bad prompts. Problem if the ownership stays behind the algorithm. Also reproduction of bias, defamation, stereotypes and so forth. Do humans have a right for authorship for AI produced works? The question of intention.” Let the readers know that I found the discussion comprehensive and vivid on top of its undoubted urgency. You can add your opinion as well.

Zum eSeL Twitter Kanal

Mehr Informationen finden Sie in unserer Daten­schutz­erklärung
Zur eSeL Facebook Page

Mehr Informationen finden Sie in unserer Daten­schutz­erklärung
Die Webanalyse durch Google Analytics wurde deaktiviert.