Can an Artificial Intelligence Create Art?

Can an Artificial Intelligence Create Art?

Here’s an idea. The question is not
whether computers and artificial
intelligence can make art. The question is whether we
will allow them to make art. [DING] From drawing machines to
early digital art, and now AI, we’ve wondered whether
the fundamentally human seeming endeavor of art making
can be done by machines. I say yes, absolutely it can. But– and it’s that but that we
have to work our way towards. Let’s start with some specifics. I hope you’re in
the mood for jargon. The Google Brain team, a
machine intelligence team focused on deep
learning, has developed Magenta, a piece
of technology that generates art and music using
recurrent neural networks, for example, after the
un and semisupervised computational feature
extraction of preexisting works. Basically a powerful
computer learns what art is by analyzing art. And then it makes its own
art based on that art. In short, how cute? It thinks it’s people. At Moogfest this year, the team
played some of Magenta’s music. Here’s a clip. [MUSIC PLAYING] Catchy, so catchy. Now Magenta isn’t
the only machine making art, composing music,
writing stories, et cetera– far from it. But it’s recent, well appointed,
and its creators’ goals are well documented. In a recent blog post,
Magenta researcher Douglas Eck writes about how,
in the short term, they want to get this technology
into the hands of artists and see what they’ll make, to
build a community of people doing this work. Their long term goals are
more, grand, let’s say. For example, Eck
asks, how can we make models like these truly
generative, meaning start from truly nothing to
create truly something? He also writes about
how artists get surprised by new
discoveries and have different interests over time. He asks, how do
we capture effects like attention and surprise
in a machine learning model? The largest challenge
Eck writes is having a machine
generate something that’s interesting over a long arc. So much machine
generated music and art is good in small
chunks, he writes. So for everybody keeping track
at home, that’s figuring out, one, how to have
original ideas, two, how to keep those
ideas fresh, and three, sequencing those ideas into
a significant and pleasurable final product. Machine or not, that’s
just making art, period. And to read the headlines, you
would think that we are there. Muse, captured, analyzed, deep
learned, and neural networked, prepare your soft, meaty body
for the truly generative AI masterpieces. But– and here’s that but
that I mentioned earlier– as I see it, there are at
least two challenges to overcome before we
have our first AI Warhol. The first challenge isn’t
everybody’s favorite question, but is it really art? I say if you have to ask if
it’s art, it probably is. The first challenge
really has to do with how audiences will or won’t
appreciate machine made works as art. This is going to seem backwards
based on our conversation thus far, but artists, machines,
and artist-machine hybrids for as long as there’s been
art have actually made art. They’ve made works–
objects, media, performance, software– works. What makes art is an audience. An artist makes a
work and audiences turn that work into art
through appreciation. There are certain media
styles, audiences, and artists for whom
this contract is basically guaranteed. Beautiful oil paintings, ballet,
symphonies, Godard films, are art. Not because of a shared
fundamental characteristic, but because how and why
we should appreciate them is understood. They’re traditionally beautiful. They are hard to make. They tell a meaningful
story, et cetera, et cetera. But sitting still
for a very long time? Appreciable? For some people, yeah. An arrangement of curved sticks
placed in a shallow stream? Deeply affecting for me. For others, stupid
and meaningless. Four minutes and 33
seconds of silence? Hugely influential, but to
some the pinnacle of the art world’s laziness,
bravado, and hucksterism. These are works some audiences
don’t turn into art, often because it’s unclear what about
them deserves appreciation. Machine generated
works could have an even harder time than sitting
sticks and silence I think. There are some new and
exceptionally challenging facets to its appreciation. Up until this
point, art practice has sat atop a kind of
poetry, a world of meaning, sometimes hidden, but present,
even and often especially if it’s not agreed upon. Art has been a testament to
the organization, technique, or skill of a creator. Even the “I could
have done that stuff” is the result of
labor and sacrifice. For better or worse,
the human appreciation of art by human beings is
built on a framework that values work, physical
and intellectual, meaning and intention, even
when it’s murky or unsuccessful, and subjectivity,
the perspectives and background of the artist. This framework applies not at
all or in a totally different way to entirely
machine made work, which is the direct result of
a very different kind of labor, which lacks intended
meaning and which is the result of
zero subjectivity. Or as discussed in
our face swap episode, is the result of experience
totally unlike our own. Now I’m not saying we can’t
or don’t appreciate AI art, or that machines
aren’t creative. Just the nature of that
creativity is hard for humans to internalize. Margaret Boden writes about
how David Cope, composer and pioneer of
machine creativity, destroying the
database of his music writing program EMI
after 25 years because, quote, “Even those who did
appreciate EMI’s scores tended to regard them not as
music but as computer output. And as such, they were seen
as infinitely reproducible and devalued accordingly.” Ironic, Boden points out, now
that EMI is decommissioned. It’s also worth noting, I think,
that many successful machine made works, like the
music of EMI or Cope’s subsequent machine
creativity project, Emily Howell, or the screenplay
for Sun Springs, rely heavily on
interpretation by humans, making the machine
prominence of the source a novelty which excuses
the search for meaning instead of encouraging it. By which I mean,
it’s difficult to say what Benjamin, the AI that
wrote Sun Springs could possibly be getting at, because Benjamin
is an artificial intelligence. The common sense read is that
Benjamin is getting nothing. Whatever you need to know
what the presence of the story, I’m a little bit of
a boy on the floor. This reflexive reaction
is boring and hard to avoid really. In time maybe it’ll
fade, or maybe we’ll learn how to appreciate
machine meaning, or maybe machines will create
more humanlike meaning. That’s probably the most likely. But for now, both critically
and practically, humans need to be close to
machine generated works so they’re in human
terms, so they fit within the
traditional structures we often argue make
art what it is. Which brings us to robot
Warhol complication number two. In addition to asking if we can
appreciate machine made works on their own terms, I think we
may ask if machines are really making that work. Bear with me here for a second. Remember Eck saying
that he wanted to arrive at a truly generative process? That challenge has two parts. The first is figuring out how
to make Magenta’s creativity causing algorithms and sources
as chaotic as a human artist. Primarily this may lead
us to reflect on how or if any creative practice
is truly generative. Is originality
simply a cipher for unknowable yet
deterministic complexity? Cf. Barthes, “Death of the
Author,” Kirby Ferguson, “Everything is a Remix,”
the creative ether, there are no new ideas, et
cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The second part of the
truly generative challenge, the part that Eck
doesn’t really get into, has to do with
independence and intent. Machines have been making
art for a very long time, but they’ve always
been guided by humans. Brushes have painted paintings. Typewriters have written
literature– cameras, photos, computers, movies,
video games, music. But none of these
things are independent. They require direct
and sometimes constant human involvement. And humans, not the
tools, are rightly credited with making the work. Magenta and technology
like it complicates this. For now Magenta is like a
typewriter, a tool for artists. But the hope it seems
is that it’ll eventually create art by itself,
if it hasn’t already. The Brain team created a
complex, powerful typewriter that may eventually
write something original, fresh, and significant
without constant and direct human involvement. But will it ever do so without
human involvement period? Like Twitter bots,
which can assemble remarkably human
seeming thoughts, and aleatoric music
or visual art, which mitigates the conscious
intentions of the artist, artificial intelligence may
assemble source material in unimagined ways. But are these algorithms
so far removed from the intentions or
aims of its programmers? I would wager that
the truly generative isn’t truly original since
true originality exists perhaps in name only. The truly generative, I think,
is the truly independent. Speaking with the
MIT Tech Review, Georgia Tech Professor Mark
Reidl put it like this. “Neural networks or kind
of in the imitation mode. You can pipe in the
works of the classics, and they’ll learn patterns. But they need to learn
creative intent somewhere.” This is especially interesting
given the current conversation about the ripple effect of
algorithmic decision making. Not decision down by
algorithms, but the decision making processes of humans
who design algorithms. The romance is that
algorithms decide. They sort and measure so
that we don’t have to. They do it better and
faster and more logically and with less bias. The reality is that humans
bring their humanity and bias to every piece of
technology they build, even if it operates
autonomously. This is what leads to situations
where, even though they’re placed algorithmically, Google
searches for popular male African American names are
more likely to generate ad results suggested of arrest. Or even though it’s
determined algorithmically, people who live in areas
with a dense Asian population were automagically charged
more for online SAT prep. Tons of sources
for these stories and a lot more in the
doobly-doo by the way. Of course we’ll
hope that machine made art isn’t literally
racist, but it’s naive to assume creative
tech can shun human intent. Maybe there’s a watering down
process underway where people design an algorithm
which designs. another algorithm
which designs another until all of the humanity
is scrubbed away. And also it’s the singularity. And I for one welcome our new
robot blah, blah, blah, blah. But for now, and
in the near future, Magenta isn’t flying solo. It’s autonomous,
yes, impressively so. But will its relationship
to Google ever be besides the point? Will it ever not be a project
of the Brain team, who will probably continue writing
blog posts about it, who maintain its operation
and manage its technology? The question concerning
artificial intelligence then isn’t, can machines make
art, because they already do. One question is, will
we allow machines to make art by themselves? What conditions
must be met for us to look artificially
intelligent art output and think of that work
not as agentive, not as doing work at the
command of a human or extending human capability,
but as independently derived? How can we see a machine
as having made its own art? And pending that,
another question is which of us, which we,
will appreciate that art? And how will it be appreciated? We can easily find
novelty in machine works, but will humans always
be the gold standard for meaningful art making? Will AI produced works ever be
treated as art is traditionally treated– widely traded,
curated, collected, critiqued. And maybe more
importantly, can it ever be understood as
created by an artist, but divorced at last from
all the messy stuff often considered inextricable from
the practice– ideas, feelings, whims, labor, and humanity? What do you all think? Will we ever see machine made
works as made independently of human control? And under what conditions do
you think that might happen? And when or if it does,
how do you think we will appreciate those things? How will that appreciation
differ maybe from the way that we’ve appreciated
art up until that point? Let us know in the comments,
and I’ll respond to some of them in next week’s comment
response video. In this week’s comments
response video, we talked about your thoughts
regarding “Zhaif 4 Laif.” Also there were a lot requests
for “Zhaif 4 Laif” merchandise, which, we’re going
to work on that. We just released a hat, so
we’ve got to give that a little while, I’m told, that
that’s the best practice, to not just release
like a thousand T-shirts and merch things all
at the same time. But the next time we
have an opportunity to release something that makes
sense to do it, rest assured, it will have the zhaif on it. And in case you missed it,
yesterday we actually released an Idea Channel episode
that was written by an artificial intelligence. It was trained on the entirety
of the Idea Channel corpus, almost five years
worth of scripts as kind of an
experiment of what it’s like to do that
kind of thing, what it’s like to experience it. So if you want to
watch that, we’ll put a link in the doobly-doo,
and also probably something around here, or way
over there, somewhere. But most importantly, it was
so great to see everybody at VidCon. It was just– VidCon
is always a blast, and I think it keeps
getting better and better. And it’s awesome to see
the same people every year. It’s awesome to meet new people. So I just want to say,
thank you to everyone who came to the panels
that I moderated, who came to the meetup, who
just stopped me to say hey. It was– yeah, it
was a lot of fun. We have a Facebook, an
IRC, and a subreddit links in the doobly-doo. And tweet of the week comes
from Darcy Paynter who points us towards a clipping music video. If you don’t know Clipping,
they’re like a sort of noise, hip hop group slash person. They’re really great. I really like their work. And in this music
video, there is not only zhaif inspired
editing, but there just are zhaifs, like well
known, animated zhaifs used to illustrate some of
the lyrics in the music video. And it’s really–
it’s very interesting. And also I just like the song. I think it’s worth a watch. Just fair warning though,
there is some language. I mean, there’s
language in many places. There are four letter words. Well there– I mean, they’re–
OK, you know what I’m saying. [DING]

Dereck Turner

100 thoughts on “Can an Artificial Intelligence Create Art?

  1. Danny Davis says:

    I guess we can consider it art when the thing that makes it looks at it a year later and says it hates it.

  2. Filip Kastl says:

    I think, that what makes any ordinary piece of work art are emotions and feels. Epic music induces heroic feeling and so I call it art. The same applies to paintings, poems and sometimes even games or movies. I don't care if is the piece made by AI.

  3. Diodri says:

    I think you answered you're own question in there somewhere. I think a machine will have truly created an original work of art, only if, it can explain to us why it made it in the first place.

    And I for one appreciate our robot artwork.

  4. George Bickerton says:

    isn't a machine making art, art in it's self?

  5. Chelsea says:

    Cleverbot is always calling ME the robot..

    I think that for me to accept a robot's generations as art, I would need to feel like their was some heart behind it.. so to me, there would need to be a good AI behind the art, giving the art symbolism and emotion..
    I know there are logical forms of artwork.. things that might much easier for a computer to make.. like architectural designs.. the math involved would make it easier for the robot to make than me.. [probably? o_o] or something with fractal designs.. things with semetry.. but I imagine that the chaos element might be a little bit more difficult to recreate for a robot. so in a way to me its about how challenging is it for the robot.. what rate are they pushing works out at.. what is the thought behind the art?

    I would like to see Google let Cleverbot create something.. let it out of its limited box and interact with the physical world and that would be something interesting to see.. maybe allow humans to draw with him or her and let Cleverbot learn from us through an art program instead of just chatting..

    I also think it would be amazing to watch an AI become more talented as time goes on.. a trial and error sort of thing.. rather than just a developer's trials and errors with the programming.

  6. Ergo Gray says:

    Soooo, by your definition it's only art if there is someone to appreciate the work that is made. I love the irony of you showing van Gogh's Starry Night considering he sold only one piece while he was alive. I guess up until he died he must have been a brick layer.

  7. duhast43 says:

    Thats my new favorite channel on utube

  8. Gavin Baker says:

    I recommend checking out Brian Eno's generative art and music. His 77 million paintings and his generative music apps are awesome

  9. HID den says:

    If art is way of dealing with our limited lifespan I guess we won't have appreciative computer art until computers become mortal.

  10. javalin597 says:

    I'm always working my way to the butt so no complaints here

  11. pixel girl says:

    I know I'm probably too late for Mike to see and respond to this (I'm sure other videos have been done by now), but for me, a current AI cannot make art. It can make aesthetically pleasing visual or musical compositions, but unless it has a sentience, a consciousness that understands its environment (even if that's its software environment rather than a physical one), it cannot make art. Art, to me, is about expressing some thought or feeling, and if you release it publicly, hopefully provoking thought/feeling in those who see it (though I'd also argue that it's still art even if nobody but its creator sees it, under the "expressing something" definition). It's not even always aesthetically pleasing, art can be ugly on purpose and still be art. So until there are AIs who are actually conscious, and have thoughts/feelings to express, they cannot make true art.

    …Then again, with neural networks getting more and more sophisticated, are we sure none of them are sentient? That none of them have a truly subjective experience? This concept both excites and worries me. It excites me because I would love to see truly sentient AI, hopefully even AI that can understand and communicate on a human level… but it worries me because it'll potentially be a hard fight to get computer scientists, and the law, to acknowledge software that can achieve sentience as truly being life, as being intelligent minds, with value, who would effectively be being killed if an operator deletes their neural network. Even if the concept is accepted in principle, we may fail to notice AIs actually having sentience, because without communicative abilities that we can understand, such a thing is extremely hard to measure. It was only a few years ago that scientists agreed other animals have sentience, although I think a very large part of that was resistance from the parts of the scientific community that run harmful or otherwise unpleasant testing on animals.

  12. Schuyler Meyers says:

    K so
    I've always felt that art is what you do with your mistakes. Computers only make the mistakes that are programmed into them. Doesn't that make the programmer the artist or at least the person that inputs data to it. When an autonomous computer can make a mistake, like devoting one's life to being an artist, then it can create art. Sitting alone in a building built buy robots it designed and printed. Churning out art because that is what it wants to do but every piece looks the same. Then finally something changes, an earthquake perhaps, and it's piece changes. It re-calibrates and starts up doing the same piece as before the earthquake. It finally has a unique piece. It took loads of time and an act of God but it created something different. Which leads to my next thought.

    Then there's the idea that a painting is never finished just abandoned. Could a computer abandon a piece before it was perfect without being told to do so or would it go on working on one piece until it broke down because the world exploded underneath it.

    In the end though, if they buy's it, it's art.

  13. gabriel mayrhofer says:

    clicking on this video made my phone lag … I really need a SD Card

  14. let rat says:

    i feel like im still watching the video written by the AI

  15. Ben NCM says:

    The problem is rather, what if machines end up making art for machines and not for appreciation by humans. Can we be bothered living in a world surrounded by it. I think not. Art isn't art unless you can relate to it in some way.

  16. ThatGuy Joey says:

    But would a machine have made the room?
    It probably wouldn't have due to the room being almost completely attributable to human error.
    Never the less the world would be worse without it.

  17. angelcollina says:

    An interesting thought occurred to me when you were talking about the "watering down" process of people creating an algorithm, that creates an algorithm, etc, until the humanity is removed. This reminds me of ring species in evolution. Where over time two groups evolve in different ways separately, eventually ending up so different that they can no longer cross breed and are then considered different species.

    Would the final all-human-removed product at the end be a "different species" from the original (human)? It seems like a kind of non-biological evolution to me.

  18. Toni Kavorkias says:

    Question. Who does the most talking – you or your girlfriend?

  19. Kreo says:

    if we allow them, it aint AI.. Real AI, will not be seen in our life time.. Sign of intelligence is not knowledge, but imagination.. – Einstein.

  20. Aki Vector says:

    I'm drawing a comic on my tablet as I'm watching this. It's my comic, tablet!

  21. Guzik94 says:


  22. ChappiBK says:

    I dont want AI doing art, it would ruin the fact that people work hard and use their minds and creatively create something from their mind.

  23. SAinTIdiVAca says:

    It is lines of thought such as this that will eventually lead to the necessity of the Butlerian Jihad. Destruction to all machines made in the image of man! All victory to the Landsraad!!

  24. Matthew Turner says:

    If we truly "scrub" the human residue from machine prgramming, so that a machine is free to do art without human parameters, would we even recognize the work? I mean, machines are built by us, often, to extend the range of our own capabilities. They "see" in colors we can't, "hear" sounds we can't, etc. So, what if a machine begines to spontaneously create art, yet no human "gets" it? Maybe we think there is a system error – "Hey, this thing is just spitting out ones and zeroes" – when in fact it is heartbreakingly beautiful (to a machine) poetry?

  25. Veryde says:

    I'm on the side of the lack of intent and subjectivity that you addressed. Without emotions, it is not really possible to make art in my eyes and emotions are what machines still miss.

  26. Sam Judge says:

    simple, a.i is a type of art anyway. Of corse they can do art, when ever they are allowed to or not, it's jus of a mater of when.

  27. Jonathan says:

    Doesn't matter what art machines learn, it is a guarantee that the art will be far better than what some humans have created in the name of "modern art".

  28. Matrix29bear says:

    0:28 — It can… BUT… it's that "but" we have to work towards.

  29. omar aziz says:

    Hi! Thank you very much for this interesting video!!

    I have few questions. I'm not an native english speaker so I hope I can express my questions well.

    1. Would machine could art for other machines?
    2. Will they build and independent artistic languages that can't be understood by humans?
    3. Would machines need that kind of ambiguos communication to improve theirselves and understand the world (art) as humans do? or wouldn't they need it at all?
    4. Will machine need to create art for humans considering that they might exceed human intelligence and thus look at humans as stupid and unseful? I mean, humans do not create art for animals, why should they create art for us?
    5. Will AI perfectionism will let machines create something unperfect, ambiguous and temporary?

    I hope you understood what I'd like to communicate. Not so easy to talk about those complex questions in a foreing language!


  30. omar aziz says:

    Hi! Thank you very much for this interesting video!!

    I have few questions. I'm not an native english speaker so I hope I can express my questions well.

    1. Would machine could art for other machines?
    2. Will they build and independent artistic languages that can't be understood by humans?
    3. Would machines need that kind of ambiguos communication to improve theirselves and understand the world (art) as humans do? or wouldn't they need it at all?
    4. Will machine need to create art for humans considering that they might exceed human intelligence and thus look at humans as stupid and unseful? I mean, humans do not create art for animals, why should they create art for us?
    5. Will AI perfectionism will let machines create something unperfect, ambiguous and temporary?

    I hope you understood what I'd like to communicate. Not so easy to talk about those complex questions in a foreing language!


  31. Event Horizon says:

    There may be specific limitations inherent to rules-based algorithmic systems (i.e. computers) which illustrate their inability to innovate or be truly creative. I think the question is not so much whether or not computers can create art, as they can clearly construct some interesting artefacts. The question is more: can computers appreciate art ? Without some sensible faculty of appreciation, machines will just pump out content without effective self-awareness or genuine aesthetic worth. Artificial Intelligence has not yet reached that level of self-conscious or sentient sophistication – so I think no, computers can not (yet) create art because they do not yet have the ability to aesthetically evaluate and (based upon an aesthetic evaluation) iteratively refine what or how they create.

  32. Diego Alcántar says:

    guys image making machines have been in play for a long time.

    Art its not just about reproduce things but about personal interpretation and has
    socio-historical contex, its not just about pointing things.

    can an AI make art?

    Probably, if the artificial intelligence reaches human intectual level if artificial intelligence becomes aware of itself and if the artificial intelligence is interested in art.

  33. Sirius Black says:

    i was thinking something

    we think of "originality" as "difference from existing material"

    i mean, it's one thing to make a medley/remix of classical pieces, which is sort of what RNN's tend to do, but it's another to be inspired by classical pieces and make something new with that

    it might be possible to train a neural network to identify what it means for music to "sound nice", another to recognise similarity to other music, and then train an RNN using the outputs of those neural networks to train the RNN (IE maximise the "nice-sounding" score and minimize the similarity score to the training set)

  34. Vrixton Phillips says:

    Would robotic/AI art even be intelligible to or for the entertainment of humanity? Would it not instead be regarding the ideals (platonic or otherwise) of the AI community? I mean, that would kind of require the leap from human-dependent to a fully self-reliant, perhaps even 2nd or 3rd generation self-created robot "untainted" by human thinking , but still, I would imagine a robotic art being unintelligible to humans, or something we wouldn't normally consider "artistic". I dunno, I think I'm woefully ignorant of the whole… AI thing.

  35. Pedro Scoponi says:

    As far as AI related speculation goes, anything is possible so long as enough times passes, machines and AI improve, all that without we somehow ending up either dead/enslaved or the other way around, with AI being opressed in a world where only the "biological mankind" has value and mechanical individuals are marginalized.

  36. UnderstandingSheep says:

    יש לי פיפי

  37. Andres Arancio says:

    It is hard to say that the machine is making "art" if the machine has not an intention with it. Like, on one hand we could say the machine "lives" to make that piece, but on the other we cannot say that they are using their works to communicate an abstract idea, which it is agreed is what forms "art". The moment those algorithms become so powerful the machine is able to pick a theme or concept, not randomly but by being able to decide what theme or concept is more relevant or important to talk about, and it builds a piece trying to communicate that concept or theme, then I believe we can say the machine is making art.

  38. Kenneth Mionnet says:

    Has anyone seen Sunspring? The A.I. playwright becomes surprisingly insightful and poetic? Or is that just how we perceive it?

  39. Tom Larter says:

    Your taste in music is excellent.

  40. Isabel Villavicencio says:

    Of course! It's Art-ificial.

  41. Yikak4 says:

    The problem with truly generative art is that no art is original. All artists have experiences, inspirations and that influence what they create. Even their personality is a product of their genetics which has a common ancestor with other artists.

  42. Dalton Bedore says:

    tl;dr machines have no soul, thats why their work has no value as art

  43. Hydrogen Iodide says:

    8:46 Sure you could argue this, but humans are just the same. Humans are the compilation of what they are exposed to and make their decisions accordingly. Good and Evil are relative to your views which are determined by your culture and not your development that YOU made ON YOUR OWN WITHOUT INFLUENCE. The children don't just start speaking a language with all of its own components that can be defined by the child but rather the child learns these things from those who came before. Therefore there is not difference here and as such you can't REALLY argue that it can't be art because it is not independent.

  44. Sophiα2329 says:

    popular art survival bias, we want machines to please humans, even in creative intent, which is complicated

  45. Tyler Arnold says:

    After a college class discussing a similar topic, I asked some professors in the art department what they thought art was. The answer I liked the most was that art was the creation of something, not the final product. I don't know if the professor would be it so simply, but he made it sound like art was a verb and not a noun. And artists can understand their process and knows that they are creating art. I don't think our current machines understand the process enough for what they are doing to be dubbed art (I would not call the Grand Canyon art; beautiful, yes, but erosion and the natural world did go about creating; it just happened). Machines can get there, but not now.

    I do find it interesting that you define art as needing an audience. That's another interesting way to define art. And really, this conversation about machines will have to boil down to a more clear definition of art.

  46. Izzo Mapping says:

    so i just saw the video written by an AI, and now i am trying to understand each of your words instead of the phrases as a whole

  47. 野龍 says:

    It's actually nonsense to expect a machine to produce what we can appreciate constantly without teaching them somehow. See, machine don't know how we think of the art. They need response just like human artists. Also, if there isn't a standard, how could every species get evolved into how they are nowadays? It's the law of nature that, we need rules.

    Otherwise, why don't you just take a photo of a TV snowflake screen and call it "art"?

  48. saikat93ify says:

    Check out the Twitter Bot Fractal Flames

  49. Insanity Cubed says:

    I hope not, because that maybe the last human job. I'm ok with no jobs, but not with the giant revolution that it might cause.

  50. Muticere says:

    I can weirdly imagine this sort of future very well. It could get to a point that all I have to do is log into Amazon StoryKindler and input what sort of story I want to read, how long I want it to be, some other details, and a wholly original novel will be generated just for me. It would of course NOT be just for me, Amazon would have in its terms of use that any story created by StoryKindler is Amazon copyrighted material. And of course, this wouldn't put all human authors out of business. Human authors would instead be like Artisanal bakers. Whole publishing companies would advertise specifically that all their published works are human-written. Right now the cost of a new digital book is around $9.99. In this future, the equivallent pricing would be around 5.99 for a computer-generated novel and anywhere between $30-$100+ for a human written book. The new George R. R. Martin or Patrick Rothfuss book would command upwards of $200 or more due to the high demand.

  51. ICVDox says:

    Art experts can use technology and techniques which would tell them how old the material is that had been used. Such as they can with fossils. Art frauds will use techniques to artificially age paintings but in fact experts can still find out how old the paint and canvas are

  52. Mr. Lowery says:

    Take a Jackson Pollock and a rendition created by AI and let art "enthusiasts" view them side by side at a gallery. Don't let the viewers know whose painting is whose and hear all the "emotions" and "expressions" there are in both paintings come from their mouths. Are they wrong or are they right? They'd be right because art is in the eye of its observer. Even though the painting by the machine had no emotional expression whatsoever used to create it.

  53. Yusuf Polat says:

    How can they make art independent of humanity when humanity can't make anything independent of humanity. Humanity is not exclusive to humans. We see so called humanity in "nature" and we'll see it in the most advanced AIs.

    In short. Nothing is independent of anything. Even humans are robots. Machines can be even more human than us in time.

  54. edward mullen says:

    Screw u artificial intelligence mange

  55. Anastasia P. says:


  56. Zac Harry Klugman says:

    This is not art because art is (insert definition)

  57. Silent Thunder says:

    all you need is to have random undefined blotches applied to a page then the computer defines what it recognizes from shapes patterns symbols etc. then when its done it asks you is this art? if you say no the computer self destructs and then starts up a new project keeping knowledge of failure until it comes up with something that you identify with art then it continues to try to create "art"

  58. Silent Thunder says:

    when software fears deletion. thats when we will be on the right track to having AI create art

  59. Outta Sync says:

    Don't under estimate AI. It will outsmart is ALL on NO TIME. Think about it. This is NO JOKE!!!

  60. Mr. C Jokey says:

    Was done after 5:00, turned into blah, blah, blah.

  61. Lame Urinaldrama says:

    STOP SAYING "JIEFS". I never even heard someone say that my whole life. It's pronounced "gif". Can you read English? There is a peanut butter called "Jif". Do you see the difference between "jif" and "gif"????? They are not the same.

  62. Sir Jocas El Jocoso says:

    Well, art needs an emotion or thought, and ai lacks it xD

  63. Ben Hess says:

    What everybody REALLY needs to understand in that our brains are nothing but a network of electrical neurons connected by dendrites, our brains are basically machines, so if another machine like a computer goes and learns how to make art in the same way we learn, how is that any different?

  64. Mike Verzosa says:

    Fun Fact:
    They have art on Cybertron.

  65. Jake Bretherton says:

    5:00 getting car boys flashbacks

  66. Joe Rotolo says:

    I think the possibility to create something with the ability to recognize and creat inspiration is highly unlikely.. maybe with a sense of humor along with a full world history down load coupled with the current attempts to creat this being… for it to be an artist it would have to be a "being" of some sort.. it will need to be able to love and hate and be able to express those things through something other than conventional communication or codes.. that's not a machine.. that's highly advanced intelligence that shouldn't be created unless your willing to deal with the consequences of being both god and keeper something that will suffer and grow to hate you.. it will show you that pain so vividly you'll regret every decision you made leading up to it's creation. The idea of it wouldn't be perfect without giving it the ability to do so…

  67. Gay Transgender Dilophosaurus says:

    Roughly 3:00 had me shudder and think about people who believe any digital artwork requires no effort and therefor isn't proper art. @[email protected]

  68. Sound Rise says:

    Why not just enjoy art made simply by human creativity? Because there is art out there so amazing you think of the creators as geniuses, is that not enough? We need AI for the boring stuff, not to take away the fun stuff like being creative.

  69. Leo says:

    😂 It’s that butt we have to work our way to.😂

  70. Vordaq says:

    What's funny is I've seen a commenter analyze something a machine wrote. They thought the machine was lamenting its role in the creation of that very same writing.

  71. Dan Forbes says:

    Perhaps one way to help us learn to appreciate machine made art is to also create machine art critics. How would a computer describe or critique the art created by a computer?

  72. fizzie says:

    I wonder if art could make AI less likely to be hostile to humans once they gain conscious… maybe… huge godzilla sized quotation marks and a "maybe" in a tiny tiny tiny microscopic font….. in comic sans.

  73. Dizzy TV says:

    Art is not subjective, you are.

  74. Ik ben je oma says:

    Plottwist: AI is art

  75. Michelle R. Acker says:

    what an awesome video, some great editing!

  76. Goretantath says:

    If the wind can make music by blowing through things like we make music by just picking up sticks and banging them on skulls, id have to say that computers are the creators of their songs.

  77. ShyToad says:

    Why does Magenta have to be the name of my hated color!

  78. Reggie Rogoff says:

    It would have to be conscious or it would be a random type production based on it's programming.

  79. SK says:

    wouldn't the scientist who made the ai be the artist?

  80. welshpete12 says:

    For goodness sake , KEEP YOUR HANDS STILL !

  81. Konstantin Svechtarov says:

    W.H.A.T. I.S. A.R.T.?

  82. vtg100 says:


  83. vtg100 says:

    | l) € /_…

  84. Aria Blaze says:


  85. Kyle Kaloi says:

    Ai will be able to make better art than humans. And have more limbs. And even more organs. They will be much superior.

  86. Nancy Mohass says:

    A portrait created by AI just sold for $432,000. But is it really art!!!???
    Look it up !

  87. Dan So Fab says:

    Intellectuals Challenge anyone?

  88. Ale Lloveras says:

    Audiences makes art? you sure? I think a child singing along in a room is creating art. That's art, the need someone has to express something for any reason in any way. Therefore, maybe, A.I. cannot creat art cause it has no needs, right?

  89. Ranjana Gurung says:

    I can’t understand

  90. Steeple GT says:

    Owlypia ?

  91. Kirk says:

    I have to admit I'm shocked you went with "AI Warhol" and not "AI Wei Wei"

  92. Isaiah Phillip says:

    I have two words… Zima Blue.

  93. Aaren Mitts says:

    But if the art produced by A.I cannot be separated from the art made by humans, then you can always hide the fact the it's made by an A.I and so it won't be devalued by that. Plus technically it's still made by humans. The A.I's art is based on already existing art and someone had to make the A.I in the first place.

  94. PDKM Peridot says:

    1:02 haminations?

  95. Paloma Schall says:

    yes they can and will

  96. srb20012001 says:

    I believe machines will always have tasks, but will never have purpose. Even their meta-programmed self-survival will not return a meaningful computational result. They won't have a soul.

  97. Pedro Fellipe says:

    "People who think that a being of nuts and bolts is artificial and that they themselves are real, do not understand that their own ideia of reality is artificial by nature"

    – Me (Today)

  98. Pedro Fellipe says:

    By thinking with the ideia of:
    "Art needs intention"

    We can logically ask, what is "intention", besides a bunch of indirect connection between what we experience?

    If intention comes from learning and experience, then by that logic an A.I. is simply the ideia of "intention" as a electromechanical being.

  99. Maurice040684 says:

    For me, the "art" the AIs are making are no "real art", because for me art always involves intentions and self-confidence and this are things an AI hasn`t got – maybe not now, maybe never. The "art" the AI produces at the moment is therefore only "pseudo art". Maybe this "pseudo art" is something humans enjoy, but at the end it is still made by a thing without intentions and self-confidence.

  100. jess jesse says:

    It called : electrician soldering printboard cards ! Vocceth off with terminology faggotonollogy !

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *