Can a computer make art?

[amadeus]

People can make art with computers. People can use computers to make art.
Either way, if you don’t think those two statements are totally overlapping, people are still a critical element.

But can a computer ever be trained to make art? Or will it always require human input?

I am on the pro-human side. Being human, I am also biased.

 

[Rg339]

Yeah, I think it can.

If you program a computer to replicate a landscape, add some randomness into its decision making(how to draw a line) and then have it make all lines along similar patterns. You’ve now got an artistic style. Do similar things with color, etc.

Two things that are the same are equals.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, what's the difference between using a computer to make art and a computer making art under our command?

Avocado chair here says "yes". These were quite good when told to make an 'avocado chair'
https://www.technologyreview.com/20...arning-nlp-gpt3-computer-vision-common-sense/

 

[Synobun]

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Yeah, I think it can.

If you program a computer to replicate a landscape, add some randomness into its decision making(how to draw a line) and then have it make all lines along similar patterns. You’ve now got an artistic style. Do similar things with color, etc.

Two things that are the same are equals.

Many years ago I had a program for the Amiga that created landscapes. It took forever, but the results were rather cool.

 

[citizenofdoom]

People can make art with computers. People can use computers to make art.
Either way, if you don’t think those two statements are totally overlapping, people are still a critical element.

But can a computer ever be trained to make art? Or will it always require human input?

I am on the pro-human side. Being human, I am also biased.

You make paint brush, and use it to make art.
You make computer models, and train that computer model, then use it to make art.
Yeah they are just the same things
You make tools to make art. Modern time has modern tools.

 

[Samson]

Yes. The question is if the computer is an artist. Stephen Thaler, who has tried to get computers recognised as inventors for patents and artists for copyright has sued the US Copyright Office for denying AI model authorship of digital image.

He tried to get the below image registered with the computer as the artist. The Copyright Office said:

"Copyright law only protects 'the fruits of intellectual labor' that 'are founded in the creative powers of the [human] mind' ... The office will not register works 'produced by a machine or mere mechanical process' that operates 'without any creative input or intervention from a human author' because, under the statute, 'a work must be created by a human being',"
​

The thing is, he is not some AI rights advocate, he just wants to be able to own stuff made by his computers.

This is generated each time you refresh the page by a GAN:

Loads more forms of "creative expression" at https://thisxdoesnotexist.com/

Spoiler Things that do not exist :

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Yes. The question is if the computer is an artist. Stephen Thaler, who has tried to get computers recognised as inventors for patents and artists for copyright has sued the US Copyright Office for denying AI model authorship of digital image.

He tried to get the below image registered with the computer as the artist. The Copyright Office said:

"Copyright law only protects 'the fruits of intellectual labor' that 'are founded in the creative powers of the [human] mind' ... The office will not register works 'produced by a machine or mere mechanical process' that operates 'without any creative input or intervention from a human author' because, under the statute, 'a work must be created by a human being',"
​

The thing is, he is not some AI rights advocate, he just wants to be able to own stuff made by his computers.

This is generated each time you refresh the page by a GAN:

Loads more forms of "creative expression" at https://thisxdoesnotexist.com/

Spoiler Things that do not exist :

Interesting images. It's actually pretty easy to tell they're not real. The pupils in the cat's eyes are different sizes. The woman's ears definitely don't match. The horse's anatomy is distorted.

 

[Samson]

Interesting images. It's actually pretty easy to tell they're not real. The pupils in the cat's eyes are different sizes. The woman's ears definitely don't match. The horse's anatomy is distorted.

The horse one is pretty rubbish, I wonder if it is a harder problem or they just have not tried as hard. You do get that they are all different each time you refresh the page, so it you want to refer to a particular instance you need to copy the image and paste it into something like paint or gimp. If there is an artwork you like you can save it and claim copyright, as the only creative input is in selecting the image (probably, IANAL, IANYL, etc.) If you got to the linked site, I really like the "This Startup Does Not Exist". It looks really hard to distinguish from many "DeFi" sites.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The horse one is pretty rubbish, I wonder if it is a harder problem or they just have not tried as hard. You do get that they are all different each time you refresh the page, so it you want to refer to a particular instance you need to copy the image and paste it into something like paint or gimp. If there is an artwork you like you can save it and claim copyright, as the only creative input is in selecting the image (probably, IANAL, IANYL, etc.) If you got to the linked site, I really like the "This Startup Does Not Exist". It looks really hard to distinguish from many "DeFi" sites.

I don't think I want to look at them. They're creepy.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Interesting images. It's actually pretty easy to tell they're not real. The pupils in the cat's eyes are different sizes. The woman's ears definitely don't match. The horse's anatomy is distorted.

the "hands" (it's a reach calling those that) are melting into each other and the "person's" face and it's the *ears* that bother you ?

still, the answer to OP question is "obviously yes".

"Copyright law only protects 'the fruits of intellectual labor' that 'are founded in the creative powers of the [human] mind' ... The office will not register works 'produced by a machine or mere mechanical process' that operates 'without any creative input or intervention from a human author' because, under the statute, 'a work must be created by a human being',"

the copyright offices' rationale isn't functional, though. the stuff wasn't created by a general ai entity (we don't have those yet, thankfully, because we don't know how to create utility functions that won't kill us). that "mechanical process" *must* have had some creative input or intervention from a human.

the act of adding notes into a machine (rather than paper) is using an algorithm/program to generate music. that's protected. the act of using a different algorithm/program to generate music is now somehow not protected? i don't see how that position is coherent.

this ruling is preposterous. maybe they could come up with other logic that holds, but as presented here the copyright office is completely bogus.

Well, what's the difference between using a computer to make art and a computer making art under our command?

i don't see a meaningful one. In a sense, the former is the latter. there are many things considered art that were made by the artist using a computer, and could not be made otherwise.

note that computers also generate music on their own now, and a subset of that is not easily distinguished from music made by people when listening one after another. yet someone still made that software.

 

[Samson]

the copyright offices' rationale isn't functional, though. the stuff wasn't created by a general ai entity (we don't have those yet, thankfully, because we don't know how to create utility functions that won't kill us). that "mechanical process" *must* have had some creative input or intervention from a human.

the act of adding notes into a machine (rather than paper) is using an algorithm/program to generate music. that's protected. the act of using a different algorithm/program to generate music is now somehow not protected? i don't see how that position is coherent.

this ruling is preposterous. maybe they could come up with other logic that holds, but as presented here the copyright office is completely bogus.

The creative process of the human is in making the code, and that is protected by copyright. The running of the program took no creative process, you did it when you loaded this page and displayed the image above.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

the "hands" (it's a reach calling those that) are melting into each other and the "person's" face and it's the *ears* that bother you ?

Wasn't that enough? I saw the ears, realized they were completely different from each other, not to mention malformed, and didn't feel inclined to look at it any longer. As I said, these pictures are creepy and disturbing.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The creative process of the human is in making the code, and that is protected by copyright. The running of the program took no creative process, you did it when you loaded this page and displayed the image above.

i guess that works as a two step process. similar to how the people who write art creation software have the software protected, but not the art that others use it to generate.

 

[River_Ghost]

Computers/AI can make art now. The human artist is already obsolete in the conventional sense.

Now, it will be those that are most articulate with the spoken word, and of the mind, that create art. This already exists. When it is jail broken, the sky will be the limit, for everything the human imagination can conceive of.

Soon.

 

[Narz]

Wow that's pretty sick

 

[River_Ghost]

Wow that's pretty sick

It's going to be, essentially, everything. Robots making and fixing robots, eventually, sooner then later. So. Where would we fit in?

Even menial jobs.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Anything can be art, but everything is not already art.

 

[warpus]

How would you define "art" ?

Does art require a conscious creator? Or can it be created using natural processes?

The answer to OP's questions seem to depend on these questions being answered first.

IMO you can't really define art, because art is different things to different people. Whether you're the artist or an observer, you will probably have slightly different ideas as to what art exactly is. Somebody will say that a painting of a can of soup is art. Somebody else will say that a photograph of a can of soup is art. Somebody else altogether will say that the can itself is art. Somebody else will say that the process of eating soup is art. And all these people could very well disagree with each other.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

It doesn't really matter, anything can be art. What matters is if it's any good.