This essay is an attempt to address this topic
as objectively and honestly as possible. It
seems unlikely that there will be a consensus
on this matter due to its’ intrinsic subjectivity,
however it doesn’t seem to be an obvious defeater.
Composition has been reduced to rules in an attempt to make it teachable. Though there’s not an ironclad set of instructions for creating art, use of the principles can bring about fairly strong examples. Graphic pieces might be best centered around balance. This would include use of canvas real estate, symmetry and size of forms, use of warm and cool colors and light and dark shade variants. Graphics maybe the most practical genre for AI in that they tend to be more logically and methodically composed. With painting a scene there are also many tools that could be employed to create the subject/s and add interest. Even natural subject matter can be generated with the use of fractal math for instance rough mountain slopes and tree branches. Placing them then with consideration of the “Rule of Thirds” and an off center focal point as though they are being raytraced from a camera in a 3D workspace could be a rout for implementing composition 101. The rules for color theory and shading were derived from physical science and have already been implemented in shaders. I think composition would be one of the more strait forward aspects of art for the AI.
In making a piece interesting, an interesting subject or theme is required. Since the basis of this is essentially subjective, it’s unlikely to be empirically demonstrable and probably subject to criticism. There are however rules for this as well. In painting a scene one could generalize it with forming a sentence. It could have a subject and predicate that could be embellished with adjectives and descriptive adverbs. One might be able to create a piece that tells a short story in this manor. Like with mathematics the components can be derived from natural language. This of course is a field that is well on its’ way. One issue might be with the pattern recognition needed to create components that indicate movement or some form of animation for predicate visuals.
Expression could be fairly effectively simulated through rule sets. Negative emotion could be expressed through breaking some of the composition rules for example, using muddy colors and an overarching lack of contrast could depict an air of dolor. Positive emotion could be conveyed with pastel type colors, dramatic lighting schemes and even lots of rounded shapes. It would be safe to assume that this is where the bulk of the controversy will lie. There will likely always be some debate on whether AI could create an expressive piece. I personally think that our view of our emotional responses being complex beyond pragmatic reduction and implementation just has not been shown in the art world. I would even suggest that art has helped us to better understand our emotional states and how environmental factors can effect them. This is a tool that could be used to invoke an emotional response. This is also something that I think could be researched effectively and empirically.
As artists we like to think of ourselves as creators but, to the contrary; even our more creative works are composed of pre-existing components arranged in a novel way. Even the works of the more creative artists like Picasso and Salvador Dali follow along that line. An assertion of the notion that an AI could not be as creative as a human does not appear to be justifiable because of this. It would seem that creativity could be implemented with simple, rule breaking rules. This is a likely topic for debate among the art community however a difficult one to push as an empirical issue.
Debate on this topic is likely to persist indefinitely. The issues with finding a consensus are many. The art community is an anarchy in its purest form. Subjectivity is not only evident but also encouraged. The question as to whether an AI could create art is made essentially unanswerable by the fact that we can’t even agree on a definition of art. Artists do however tend to assert that it’s in no way important. It’s my intuition that there will be a large percentage of artists that would prefer that the answer to the question be subjective. I think it would be safe to say that many would expect that an AI would compensate for not being biological through technological strengths. The Atlas vs Dionysus debate is likely to play a role in forming opinions. This is an ongoing debate on the importance of technical (Atlas) and emotionally expressive (Dionysus) skill sets. I would expect that some would assume that an AI would be likely to be the pure Atlas in that the technical capabilities are thought to be more quantifiable. Personally I don’t feel confident at this point to make an assumption about whether a software regulatory system could produce a response (especially with music) as our emotions can. It would seem possible in principal but the idea is so foreign that I would see a decision either way as a presupposition. All in all I find the issue of subjectivity to be such a huge issue that it essentially renders itself a non-issue.
The ability to connect with and move in some way one experiencing a piece of art maybe one of the most difficult issues that will be faced. We couldn’t be even remotely certain about cross-qualia translation. With art being subjective it wouldn’t seem to be an obvious hindrance but in principal, with assessing an AIs’ piece we couldn’t be pragmatic in determining as to whether or not we understood the piece or if we are even capable. I don’t think this is a preventative issue because it exists now to some degree between humans. This also would likely be subject to an ongoing philosophical debate.
Many artists in the community (especially young ones) are enthusiastic about contributing to society with their art. The pinnacle of this in my opinion is through invoking epistemic self-reflection. When a piece causes pause and consideration for ones way of thinking and/or behavior, it has the potential to promote a greater sense of altruism in those who experience it. It would be difficult to speculate as to whether an AI could accomplish such a task. Back to the issue of connection; it could be lost in translation or it could be an experience we are incapable of understanding. It could on the other hand bring about a greater understanding in some novel way. This of course is just unanchored speculation and I’m looking forward to being able to experience AI art. This would at least bean opportunity to come to some sort of understanding.
It would seem that the best way to predict an outcome would be to draw from the outcomes of previous attempts at art by non-humans. There is an added degree of separation with the AI being non-biological as well but I doubt that it will have that much influence. It would be safe to assume that the debates would go through the motions as they have in the past, and when an AI creates a piece of art it will be an interesting enough situation that the piece could command a hefty price or hang in any museum around the world. Since there would as always be no pressure on the art community to come to a consensus on whether it is art; it would just be an addition to many millions of pieces that are shrouded in subjectivity. The question itself is essentially an uninteresting question and the answer is likely yes. Why not?
The Fermi Paradox doesn’t seem so paradoxical with respect to modern notions of the possibilities of future technological progress. It may be that our current technologies and augmentations are far too inferior to detect signs of extra-terrestrial intelligence. We are after all a primitive species.
Closing the gap.
Dr. Michio Kaku stated that the best way to explore the galaxy for intelligence might be with self-replicating probes. These probes would be able to make copies of themselves from raw materials and therefor cover more territory by the swarm tactic. It may be that this suggests that these probes sport some sort of nano-technology. This makes the possibility of detection in the orbit or even the atmosphere difficult as they could be very small. They could be easily mistaken for space junk in the orbit and ground radar might not detect them at all. This is where it gets sci-fi.
This is a form of nano-technology that is composed of large numbers of discrete parts. Claytronics ( http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~claytronics/ ) would fall into this category. If the before mentioned probes were cellular automata, then there might be great difficulty in detecting their presence.
There’s also the notion that the discrete parts could be independently functional. We’re not sure how functional something say… the size of a pea could be; much less the size of a grain of sand. Dr Hugo de Garis ( http://profhugodegaris.wordpress.com/ ) has made some considerations about the processing power of nano-tech the size of a grain of sugar and he suggests that it could be many orders of magnitude above human capabilities. Suppose that much of that potential is allocated to other functionality. It begs the question… is there an intelligent grain of sand observing me as I write this blog… stalking me in my carpet and periodically dodging the vacuum? Is the Roomba the most threatening technological advancement we have against such a hypothetical presence by shear annoyance? Was that “crazy” Canadian Martyn Stubbs on to something……………….. naaaah!
I’ll end the awkward silence with this. We are a sub type 1 primate. This is something that we have to come to grips with when trying to quantify a reasonable approximation of reality. Our domain is likely so limited and our technology so primitive that we don’t seem to have ample information for comparison and contrast in deriving conclusions about the nature of reality. I always feel a little beside myself and tend to think my notions are inherently flawed to varying degrees when I consider the implications of our consensus. It may in fact be that nature itself has the most prevalent and useful form of nano-tech in a grain of salt.