As we probably all know: AI is currently pretty decent at making images. Of course most is easily recognizable slop, especially things produces from free-tier programs, and even most paid-tier services.

But it's not unreasonable to expect, or at least, imagine it gets better at it - in fact we probably should try to imagine a world in the not too distant future where AI programs really can make mechanically perfect artworks in any type of style. And not only images - for the sake of this discussion, we should posit it can do that with ALL types of media. Movies, books, comics, stories, music, games, architecture - even our favorite: Starcraft maps lol.

I'll say three clarifying things right away:

• 1. There IS some room for debate on whether that will actually happen or not - but that's not the point of this discussion. For the sake of this discussion, we should consider what it would be like in a world where AI programs really can _perfectly_ create pieces of art to arbitrary precision in whatever art style you ask it to.
  
  
• 2. For this discussion, by "mechanically perfect" I want to clarify I mean "IDENTITCAL to what ANY human could produce in that particular form of media." And so I mean: writings like Shakespeare, if that was the desire - but ALSO importantly: Not quite Shakespeare if _that_ is the desire; i.e. suppose you would object and say "perfection is essentially an oxymoron since it would lose those tiny 'human' imperfections which make art more valuable;" to which I want to respond with "consider AI can _intentionally_ make those tiny imperfections, so it has that 'human-like' quality." I hope that makes sense.
  
  
• 3. At the risk of sounding pretentious or something (especially since I'm also including SC maps in this definition lol) I'll just refer to all of that type of media as "art." So I'm not thinking only of images, or literature, etc - but basically, anything which traditionally has involved the creative processes of a person or people to any extent

So the central question is:

"What is the value of art in a world where AI can instantly create perfect art?"

I'll write my own thoughts:

Broadly I think there are a few things to consider when you want to think of value in art :

• A. In the final result - mechanically satisfying or aesthetically pleasing output. - basically, who/what made it or how it was made or when it was made is irrelevant.
  
  
• B. In the surrounding "story" or "history" behind the art.
  
  
• C. What does the piece of art say/imply.

Really I think C is in some ways central to the concept of 'value' and is not really at odds with A or B. Actually none are at odds with the others; these aren't all mutually exclusive things to consider.

To clarify my thoughts, I'll make one more point and then give an example.

Point:

You might have heard it said that a picture is worth 10,000 words. Let's take this as true. This essentially means that pictures/art are really saying something - even if it's just entertainment e.g. feel good video games, that entertainment inherently says something. (point C)

Take Tetris for example: You think it's not saying something? It is! It was made by a person, that person thought it would be worth their limited time on earth to program a fun little game, and so they did it - it inherently has meaning since it was made by a person and they sacrificed their time/put in the effort to create that thing (point B). It also has it's own tiny bits of the person's philosophies - "It's fun to push yourself to keep up with gradually increasing difficulty"

Also, Tetris is mechanically well produced (point A), especially for the time at which is came out. It has cute music, and simple/intuitive gameplay.

Now when it comes to AI:

I am essentially saying it can perfectly execute whatever value comes from point A. It cannot currently however replicate any value which comes from point B - at least on its own. Perhaps if you consider the person behind the machine doing the prompting you could tie that in with the output - that is an entirely valid position to take.

I order for AI to have value in its output which comes from concept B, it would have to have itself continuity (beyond whatever short context is in a chat window), and it would have to have I would argue true meaningful sacrifice put into its work. As it is now - there is _no_ sacrifice put in from the machine. Whereas when a human makes something - there is _always_ sacrifice to some degree.

In fact: in the past, when humans prodcue mechanically proficient works of art, a large part of why that is significant is actually from the fact that the person who did it poured themselves into it - they studied a long time, sacrificing their own time and effort in order to make whatever it is they made. It inherently had that sense of gravitas behind it. Even if the output was on the face of it 'stupid.' Look for example at that chinese movie, Niu Lai. At least for me, when I see those poorly CGI rendered images, I feel something which is coming solely from the fact that the creators poured themselves into it. If an AI made something like that, that feeling would be non-existent.

In the future by the way: I think it's reasonable to expect that in fact AI machines which are able to have perfect continuity in the same way that humans do, and accumulate experiences, and truly make meaningful sacrifices of themselves for certain things - then they also would be able to pour this sense of point B into whatever artwork they make. It might be slightly unrelateable to us as humans, but, not too far off. You could also imagine scenarios which have been considered already for a long time, which would draw this sense even closer to the feeling you get when humans make something. Take for example Terminator; you grow attached to him, and you even feel the weight of his sacrifice to protect John Conner at the end, because he had experiences and sacrifice.

As it is right now: I think that properly guided, AI can be a great tool for efficiency: and there is merit in just wanting fine output, e.g. playing whatever SC map you want right away, and having an AI make it for you. However, it can not replicate the inherent weight behind whatever a human makes - because a human is really saying something, making a statement, whenever they make _anything_.

Properly monitored, an AI can help someone make the thing they want to make, and make it say the thing they wanted it to say. It does lose the gravitas which comes from the person's willingness to sacrifice their time and pour in the effort to learn to produce the thing and do it well and to high precision - so it might feel less impressive; in fact, it _is_ I would say less impressive. But that's the way of things, I guess. They can regain that impressiveness, which also has merit, if they want to make it without the use of AI. That does in fact add some more value back into whatever is produced. So there's this sort of tension.

Finally: For AI mass produced, instant produced art: the substance of _what_ is being said is usually at least for now going to be 'slop' in the sense it will be the most basic or morals, the least interesting or introspective, and sometimes essentially nonsense. This is because again AI currently does not have life experiences; it doesn't right now produce novel insights which we can take away from - so basically, the point C of value; AI is sort of like just shooting a shotgun at it trying it's best in a scattershot type approach (this is my personal feeling). It might say something interesting, in fact - but whatever is said is not going to be rooted in a real person's experiences. In the future again this might change - AI artwork might truly convey novel, moving concepts and provide genuine insight into the 'human experience' or I guess 'experience of sapience.'

This means also that the use of AI in your own projects needs constant monitoring to make sure it's not introducing unintended meanings/statements/philosophies you don't really want to convey. From everything down to the minutes details, all that used to be truly touched by the people working on it; now, some of these things are being filled in with random 'words' from LLM, which even if mechanically proficient can take away from what you are trying to make.

^

Aight, that's a lot of my thoughts, but I thought I'd try to open up the topic for discussion - Idk if anyone else is interested in this stuff, but I think it's becoming more and more relevant. I would love to hear people's thoughts on it all

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on 1 hour ago by Zoan.

I think I would respond to this as if Sartre might.
Sartre would argue that we continually define and create ourselves through our choices.
If AI writes your poem, paints your picture, or shapes your opinions, it raises the question of whether the final product truly expresses who you are or simply reflects your choice to rely on AI.
I think AI makes us less authentic and failing to take responsibility for how we use AI definitely makes us less authentic and has no value.
In this sense, the value of art is not simply in how perfect the final product is, but in the authentic human choices and intentions behind it.
If those choices are completely handed over to AI, the work will lose its personal meaning and value because it no longer represents the individual's authentic expression.

My biggest fear with AI is its capabilities as a brainwashing tool. Any media produced by AI will inherently carry bias attuned to the AI creator's will. If mechahitler controls the art, than art criticizing mechahitler will cease to exist.

The human element is important to me as well. I'd rather support someone making something out of love than something churned out by a corporation - this isn't exclusive to AI, but it's the same principle. I'd rather feed a hungry artist than give the ruling elite an extra dollar.


That sacrifice is forced on ordinary people, though.

I'm not entirely anti-AI, but I don't use it myself. I'll paint with my own blood, not the blood of the world!