he artificial intelligence ‘DALL-E’ is creating new waves in the art world. DALL-E converts words into fine art, ‘creating’ unique pieces of art with the input of a few words, such as Darth Vader ice fishing. More than one million people were sent invitations to the first beta test and its popularity has only grown. However, the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in art raises an important question—is DALL-E creating art (a process involving expressing skill and imagination) or is it simply generating it (producing for the sake of it)? After all, the process that DALL-E uses is based on a code which gives an output after analyzing the artistic patterns of approximately 400 million other images. It did not go through a creative process such as taking inspiration or evaluating the piece after completion. It is a simple formulaic creation that has little leeway to change its course and produce something unique in an authentic manner for the time being.
Some might argue that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, that a reader’s interpretation is more significant than the author’s intent. As American painter Kenneth Noland said, “For me context is the key—from that comes the understanding of everything.” The author applied certain artistic tools and wrote sentences with a specific purpose, within a specific context. Especially in the arts, the context applied is often drawn from personal experiences. Completely separating that context from the product is erroneous. Since AI cannot “think” on its own, it cannot give context, and hence cannot truly “create” something. One could not remove Vincent van Gogh’s life experiences from his paintings.
Likewise, when van Gogh was alive, people did not see the beauty of his art. It was only decades after his death that his paintings gained popularity, during the time when his paintings mirrored a more popular art style. If van Gogh was able to live longer creating the same type of art, he may have seen fame during his lifetime. Unfortunately, human life is short and fragile. We are unable to reboot ourselves in the case of adversity and cannot halt our lives nor our art just to wait for a moment in time when the popular themes reflect our niche. However, AI does not have a time limit, it is everlasting. While it can be outdated, it can never truly die. So, an AI can easily restart its ‘career’ when momentum picks up.
On a different note, when one obtains an image created by DALL-E, who does it belong to—the person who coded the AI, the person requesting the image, or the AI itself? This brings many complications in terms of payment and commercial usage. On July 20th, 2022, DALL-E told its beta users that “users get full usage rights to commercialize the images they create with DALL-E, including the right to reprint, sell, and merchandise.” But as it is still in beta, there are many changes that may occur, especially since OpenAI “may change these Terms or suspend or terminate your use of the Services at any time.” Will commercial usage be locked behind a paywall, or will it be impossible to monetize the human’s (or AI’s) creativity? Since the human creator is simply putting in words to describe a situation, is it possible, that owning the image is akin to owning that particular clause? Can these images be sold as NFTs (non-fungible tokens) or are they to remain as copies in the public domain?
These questions about the commercialization of AI in artistic spheres are not new. VOCALOID software have already entered the mainstream, with one such ‘singers’ being Hatsune Miku. Her voice was created by taking vocal samples of Japanese voice actor Fujita Saki, who is credited as her voice actor. However, the VOCALOID software is owned by Yamaha, Sega owns Miku’s image, and music performances of Hatsune Miku are conducted by Crypton Future Media, a Japanese music technology company. One can easily (and legally) make Hatsune Miku sing one’s own song by downloading the software from Crypton’s website, even commercially. Artists can create their own songs and release them with Miku’s voice and feel unafraid about breaking terms of use.
Soon after Miku’s release in August 2007, Kagamine Rin and Len were also released, broadening the world of VOCALOID to include different languages, such as Chinese and Spanish. Since this software is ultimately samples of voice actors and code, these “artists” can “live” forever. These “artists” are essentially signed to the three companies, and the human creators are just the lyricists and producers. If we were to superimpose the cases of VOCALOID and DALL-E, maybe humans are the personification of inspiration to the AI’s ability to replicate and produce something original.
Day by day, the lines between the world of art and AI seem to be blurring. Can a story written by an AI be called a novel? Does photoshop exist as a creator or as a tool? Is EDM (electronic dance music) real music, or is it just generated by software with vocals on top of it? While the spaces of AI and art overlap, AI is usually just seen as tool—a means to an end. The most important process in the creation of art continues to be the creative process experienced and used by mankind. Till the time that AI and machines achieve the level of sensitivity and thinking that humans have, it will be difficult to look at AI as creators.
a global affairs media network
The Blurry Line Between Art and Artificial Intelligence
Photo by DeepMind via Unsplash.
September 18, 2022
With the artificial intelligence tool ‘DALL-E’ creating new waves in the art world, the lines between the world of art and AI seem to be blurring. But is DALL-E truly creating art or simply generating it? Radhika Rohit examines this question.
T
he artificial intelligence ‘DALL-E’ is creating new waves in the art world. DALL-E converts words into fine art, ‘creating’ unique pieces of art with the input of a few words, such as Darth Vader ice fishing. More than one million people were sent invitations to the first beta test and its popularity has only grown. However, the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in art raises an important question—is DALL-E creating art (a process involving expressing skill and imagination) or is it simply generating it (producing for the sake of it)? After all, the process that DALL-E uses is based on a code which gives an output after analyzing the artistic patterns of approximately 400 million other images. It did not go through a creative process such as taking inspiration or evaluating the piece after completion. It is a simple formulaic creation that has little leeway to change its course and produce something unique in an authentic manner for the time being.
Some might argue that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, that a reader’s interpretation is more significant than the author’s intent. As American painter Kenneth Noland said, “For me context is the key—from that comes the understanding of everything.” The author applied certain artistic tools and wrote sentences with a specific purpose, within a specific context. Especially in the arts, the context applied is often drawn from personal experiences. Completely separating that context from the product is erroneous. Since AI cannot “think” on its own, it cannot give context, and hence cannot truly “create” something. One could not remove Vincent van Gogh’s life experiences from his paintings.
Likewise, when van Gogh was alive, people did not see the beauty of his art. It was only decades after his death that his paintings gained popularity, during the time when his paintings mirrored a more popular art style. If van Gogh was able to live longer creating the same type of art, he may have seen fame during his lifetime. Unfortunately, human life is short and fragile. We are unable to reboot ourselves in the case of adversity and cannot halt our lives nor our art just to wait for a moment in time when the popular themes reflect our niche. However, AI does not have a time limit, it is everlasting. While it can be outdated, it can never truly die. So, an AI can easily restart its ‘career’ when momentum picks up.
On a different note, when one obtains an image created by DALL-E, who does it belong to—the person who coded the AI, the person requesting the image, or the AI itself? This brings many complications in terms of payment and commercial usage. On July 20th, 2022, DALL-E told its beta users that “users get full usage rights to commercialize the images they create with DALL-E, including the right to reprint, sell, and merchandise.” But as it is still in beta, there are many changes that may occur, especially since OpenAI “may change these Terms or suspend or terminate your use of the Services at any time.” Will commercial usage be locked behind a paywall, or will it be impossible to monetize the human’s (or AI’s) creativity? Since the human creator is simply putting in words to describe a situation, is it possible, that owning the image is akin to owning that particular clause? Can these images be sold as NFTs (non-fungible tokens) or are they to remain as copies in the public domain?
These questions about the commercialization of AI in artistic spheres are not new. VOCALOID software have already entered the mainstream, with one such ‘singers’ being Hatsune Miku. Her voice was created by taking vocal samples of Japanese voice actor Fujita Saki, who is credited as her voice actor. However, the VOCALOID software is owned by Yamaha, Sega owns Miku’s image, and music performances of Hatsune Miku are conducted by Crypton Future Media, a Japanese music technology company. One can easily (and legally) make Hatsune Miku sing one’s own song by downloading the software from Crypton’s website, even commercially. Artists can create their own songs and release them with Miku’s voice and feel unafraid about breaking terms of use.
Soon after Miku’s release in August 2007, Kagamine Rin and Len were also released, broadening the world of VOCALOID to include different languages, such as Chinese and Spanish. Since this software is ultimately samples of voice actors and code, these “artists” can “live” forever. These “artists” are essentially signed to the three companies, and the human creators are just the lyricists and producers. If we were to superimpose the cases of VOCALOID and DALL-E, maybe humans are the personification of inspiration to the AI’s ability to replicate and produce something original.
Day by day, the lines between the world of art and AI seem to be blurring. Can a story written by an AI be called a novel? Does photoshop exist as a creator or as a tool? Is EDM (electronic dance music) real music, or is it just generated by software with vocals on top of it? While the spaces of AI and art overlap, AI is usually just seen as tool—a means to an end. The most important process in the creation of art continues to be the creative process experienced and used by mankind. Till the time that AI and machines achieve the level of sensitivity and thinking that humans have, it will be difficult to look at AI as creators.
