From Chess to Paintbrushes: Valuing Human Creation in the AI Era
The recent exponential progress in generative AI has raised profound questions about the nature of creativity, ownership, and the future of fields like art and entertainment. An intriguing article titled “AI: Copyright is Dying a Slow Death” sparked my deeper exploration of this complex topic again.
To get some reflection on my thoughts I decide to have a back and forth with ChatGPT about the topic… And it was fascinating. You can read original conversation but I will publish refined version here.
Largely it is based on my thoughts. But some questions or things ChatGPT mentioned prompted me to add more information and interesting connections to this exploration. In the end of it its about what do we humans value and why. And why copyrights exist in the first place as human invented concept and social contract.
Art and Algorithms: A Look Back and Ahead
A decade ago, I was in a debate: Are algorithmic fractals more art or just math? I believed that, over time, algorithms could make anything. In my mind, there’s a limit to a set of all meaningful art. This made me think about the strange rules around ideas in different fields — from art and science to coding and engineering. Why do we protect ideas in some areas but not in others. What makes them different?
Now, AI is changing how we see creativity. It can make images, write text, and even make music and videos. This makes making art feel easy. This made me think more about why we have patents and copyrights. They exist because making something new can take a lot of time and money. But once it’s made, copying it is easy and cheap. So, we have patents and copyrights to make sure people still want to make new things. But these rights were created not for the people who make them; they’re a way to thank them for helping society. Its a social contract. Beneficiary is society. It just ensures that creators get their fair share for the effort. We did not have such rules before. If AI makes creating faster and cheaper, do we still need these rules?
This made me think about sports. Sports is something people do that’s not really art, but we still value it. It’s also not something you can really own like art. But why do sports matter? Why run when you can ride? Why swim when you can use a boat? Is there a real reason for sports?
And then, is making music any different? Musicians compete with each other for the top spots on music charts, like in sports. But they also compete with old music that anyone can use. Athletes don’t compete with people from the past in the same way. So, as AI becomes a big part of art, how can art stay important? Can it learn something from sports?
Defining Creativity in the Age of AI
Assistant: let’s go back to the debate you mentioned from a decade ago: Are algorithmic fractals art or math? Do you see AI creations as pure data transformations, or is there an element of genuine creativity in them?
To me, creativity is an expression of certain constraints. It’s shaped by the realities of our world, the intricacies of the human condition, our perceptions, and our understanding. Add to that the constraints of the medium in which the art is created and the message it’s intended to convey.
From this viewpoint, there’s a discernible space of all possible art, and it’s one that can be navigated. Much like with math, one can query this artistic space by establishing sets of constraints. Depending on these constraints, countless ‘solutions’ or art forms might arise. Yet, when we delve deeper, are these solutions truly distinct? My belief is that they aren’t. There’s a finite space of art where each piece is sufficiently unique from the others. Contrary to what one might assume, this space feels limited, not infinite.
Art, Zeitgeist and AI as a mirror one the wall
Assistant: That’s a thought-provoking perspective. If creativity is the expression of constraints and there’s a finite space of art that’s “sufficiently different,” it suggests that at some point, we might exhaust the unique expressions of those constraints. AI, with its ability to traverse this space at an unprecedented rate, might make this ‘exhaustion’ occur faster than it would with human creators alone.
Let’s delve into this a bit more. Traditional art has always been a reflection of the times, the zeitgeist, if you will. It’s influenced by socio-political events, personal emotions, and a myriad of other factors. When an artist paints, writes, or composes, they’re often channeling a mix of their personal experiences and the world around them. With AI, while it can generate art based on data and constraints, it lacks lived experiences and emotions. Does this make AI-generated art less authentic or valuable? Or is value and authenticity tied more to the observer’s experience and interpretation rather than the creator’s intent?
I believe that at its core, art serves as a mode of communication. The most impactful art pieces are those that tap into the zeitgeist, capturing and conveying elements so innately human that they evoke powerful interpretations in those who engage with them. This kind of art endures, standing the test of time, continuously offering meaningful interpretations to observers across generations.
However, it’s essential to recognize that there’s often a mismatch between an artist’s intent and the observer’s interpretation. The two don’t always align, and perhaps, they don’t need to.
When considering the value and authenticity of AI-generated art, it’s a layered question. I view AI as a sophisticated mirror, reflecting not just individual sentiments but possibly the zeitgeist itself. AI isn’t just a tool, but a collaborator of sorts. There’s a saying among sculptors that goes, “The statue is already there; I just follow where the stone takes me.” This sentiment captures the essence of an artist allowing their medium to guide their creation, akin to a human shaping form out of chaos. So, does that make AI-generated art any less meaningful? Does a landscape painting lose its value because of its creation method?
While certain artworks delve deep into the human experience, making them seemingly more meaningful, AI possesses a unique capability. It can absorb, understand, and mirror back the zeitgeist in ways perhaps beyond human artists. The experiences it crafts might be so poignant and intense that they surpass human-made experiences.
An intriguing point raised by an author that resonated with me concerns shared experiences. There’s a notion that AI art could make experiences so personalized that they fragment shared cultural moments. However, I’m optimistic. I believe that exceptional creations, regardless of their origin, will find their way into the collective consciousness. They’ll be shared, discussed, and become viral, much like memes do today. The primary difference? The sheer quality and depth of what rises to the top.
Real time competitive art?
Assistant: Moving to the notion of shared experiences, it’s interesting to note the dichotomy you present. On one hand, hyper-personalized AI art has the potential to create unique experiences tailored to each individual, possibly fragmenting the shared cultural touchpoints we have. On the other hand, as you rightly pointed out, the digital age has shown us that standout content, be it memes or viral videos, spreads rapidly and becomes a shared experience for many.
This brings me to another thought: Sports, as you mentioned earlier, are a form of shared experience. Thousands gather in stadiums or tune in from their homes to watch a match, collectively cheering, mourning, or celebrating. The competitive nature, the unpredictability, and the sheer human effort make it riveting.
Could art, in the age of AI, evolve to have more “competitive” elements, much like sports? Where artists or AI models compete to craft the most resonating piece for the times, with audiences eagerly waiting and discussing outcomes? Would that shift bring more dynamism and collective engagement to the world of art?
The idea of art happening in real-time is wild. It reminds me of things like improvisational theatre. There are even shows like “Game Changer” where people have to come up with things on the spot, and it’s amazing to see.
But it also makes me wonder, why do we care so much about sports? I’ve never really thought about it deeply. Sports feels a bit like art, whether it’s physical or even a mind game like chess. It’s strange that even though computers are better at chess now, people still care about it more. Maybe it’s because we like seeing real people try hard, make mistakes, and still keep going. It’s something we can all understand and feel and learn from.
There is magic in a moment of creation
Assistant: Sports, like art, is an expression of the human experience. It’s a testament to human will, determination, resilience, strategy, and sometimes, sheer luck. Here are a few reasons why we might value sports:
Physicality and Limit Pushing: Sports often involve pushing the human body to its limits. Watching an athlete break a record or make an incredible play is a testament to the potential of human capability. It’s thrilling to see boundaries being pushed.
Strategy and Intellect: Sports like chess, as you mentioned, involve deep strategic thinking, planning, and foresight. Even though computers can outplay humans, the human element of unpredictability, intuition, and emotion makes it engaging.
Relatability: Most people have played some sport or game in their lives. Watching professionals play allows spectators to relate, reminisce, and even imagine themselves in the athlete’s shoes.
Shared Experience and Community: Cheering for a team, wearing their colors, discussing matches with friends — sports have a way of bringing people together, creating communities and shared experiences.
Narrative and Drama: Every match, every game has a narrative — the underdog story, the seasoned player’s last match, the rivalry between teams. This narrative creates emotional engagement.
Drawing parallels with art, especially in the age of AI, the value might lie in the ‘human touch’. Just as we appreciate the strategy in chess or the skill in a soccer match, we might value art (even AI-generated) for the emotions it evokes, the narrative it tells, and its ability to connect us to a shared human experience.
Thinking about AI and art, do you believe that as AI becomes more prevalent in generating art, we might see a resurgence or renewed appreciation for “handmade” or “human-made” art? Just as we still value a live musical performance over a digitally perfect track?
Watching someone at the top of their game is like seeing magic happen. It’s watching someone do something so well that it seems impossible, even if they’ve spent years practicing. It feels special, rare, and like a moment that will slip through your fingers if you don’t pay attention.
Creativity is about finding a way, even when it seems like there isn’t one. It’s about taking on challenges and finding a path through them, a path that might seem impossible but becomes possible through a mix of luck, hard work, learning, and skill.
When we see this happen, it’s like watching a miracle. We might not see everything that went into it, but we can see the result, and it’s amazing.
So, is that the real value? Seeing the creative process happen? Watching someone do something that seems too hard to be real?
The Beauty in Struggle and Imperfection
Assistant: Your description captures the essence beautifully. It’s that awe we feel when we witness someone achieve or create something that seems almost superhuman. The culmination of years of dedication, hard work, and innate talent coming together in a moment of brilliance.
To answer your question, yes, much of the value we place on sports, art, and other human endeavors comes from witnessing the act of creation or performance. It’s the journey, the process, the struggle, and ultimately, the triumph. It’s the narrative of overcoming, of pushing boundaries, of achieving what seems impossible. It’s why we love stories of underdogs, of comebacks, of personal battles. The end result, whether it’s a masterpiece or a gold medal, is just a manifestation of that journey.
In the realm of AI, where the process is often obscured behind layers of algorithms and computations, this narrative of struggle and triumph is absent. An AI-generated painting or song, no matter how beautiful, lacks the human story behind it. It’s a product without a journey.
So, as AI becomes more prevalent in creative fields, perhaps what we’ll value most in human-created art isn’t just the end product but the story, the journey, the ‘soul’ behind it. It brings to mind the question: Is the process of creation as important, if not more, than the creation itself?
I like one idea here. Possibility of failure, imperfection. It’s reminiscent of the Japanese principle where imperfections are added intentionally. So, is this about the struggle? But it’s not just a struggle due to lack of skill. It’s the struggle that exists even at the pinnacle of human ability, isn’t it? Why do we hold this in such high regard? Is it our ability to relate to it, learn from it, or see our own potential through it?
Assistant: Absolutely, the concept you’re referring to is reminiscent of the Japanese aesthetic known as “wabi-sabi,” which values imperfection, transience, and the natural cycle of growth and decay. It’s the beauty of things that are imperfect, impermanent, and incomplete.
In relation to art and the human experience, the value we place on struggle, especially at the pinnacle of human ability, is multifaceted:
Relatability: Watching someone struggle, especially someone at the top of their game, makes them more human to us. It’s a reminder that no matter how skilled or talented one might be, imperfection and challenges are part and parcel of the human condition.
Inspiration: Witnessing someone overcome their struggles, pushing past their limits, and achieving greatness despite the odds can be incredibly motivating. It gives us hope and pushes us to persevere in our own challenges.
Learning: Observing the journey of someone at the peak of their ability provides insights into the process of mastery. We learn not just from their successes but also from their failures, mistakes, and the ways they navigate challenges.
Witnessing the Possible: Seeing the upper limits of human potential expands our understanding of what’s possible. It resets our benchmarks and often challenges our own self-imposed limitations.
Emotional Resonance: The raw emotion of struggle, the vulnerability it exposes, resonates deeply. It’s cathartic and often more emotionally engaging than a flawless performance.
In the future, as AI perfects the art of creation, these human elements — the struggle, the imperfections, the emotional journey — might become the distinguishing factors that set human-created art apart. They add depth, soul, and a narrative that AI, no matter how advanced, might find challenging to replicate authentically.
Reflecting on AI and human art
This exploration has been truly enlightening for me. It’s deepened my understanding of why we cherish certain experiences and creations, connecting dots in unexpected ways.
As we stand on the cusp of a future dominated by AI, we’re faced with intriguing questions. AI is on track to excel in crafting narratives, visual arts, music, and more. Not only will it be adept, but it will also be affordable, potentially inundating our world with art. This art won’t just be generic; it will be tailored for individuals, making it deeply personal.
But where does that leave human artistry? I believe it won’t spell the end. Our innate desire to express, share, and be acknowledged won’t wane. Yet, we might find ourselves placing increased emphasis on creations birthed in controlled environments, assuring they are genuinely human-made. Perhaps akin to the regulated environment of a chess game.
Alternatively, the sheer pace at which AI can create might usher in an era of real-time improvisational art.
The horizon is filled with thrilling possibilities: novel art forms, avant-garde performances, deeply personalized artistic experiences, and perhaps even efficient real-time visual communications. Some of these prospects genuinely fill me with immense excitement.
One thing I am sure about though. Humans will stay as a crucial participant, both creator and observer!
