Generative AI does not make art because it is not mortal
2024-12-17
There’s been some debate recently about AI art, whether it will ever count as real art or be worthy of interest. A lot of the ‘no’ side of the argument has focused on the choices and creativity that creators bring to their work. I think Erik Hoel’s piece is informative. Humans are, on the whole, not terribly original. And AIs can be said in some sense to be making creative choices just like humans do. Hoel concludes by identifying a slim1 margin of originality and control of distribution channels.
I think this is largely true but the analysis of choice is incomplete. The choices that human artistic creators make - that you make - matter because we are finite beings. It is the human condition. You will decay, and one day you will die. You will never live this day again, and that is why it matters what you do today. That is why your choices matter. That is why we explore lost love that can never be restored, battles that must be fought and won, and other such things, in art.
And this is why it’s reasonable to dislike a text when you know it was written by AI (if it wasn’t already obvious from how bland it is). The AI isn’t mortal and doesn’t even know it. It doesn’t have skin in the game2, and that’s why it’s boring.
Perhaps one day an AI will exist that understands (its own?) mortality, and perhaps it will choose to explore this through, let’s say, literature. That would be a fascinating book to read. It would certainly be art.
