Artificial intelligence: idea and machine

Like any new technology, so-called artificial intelligence is a priori viewed with suspicion. And as with the introduction of the record, the sound film, the music cassette, the self-burned CD, sampling, the distribution of digitized music on the Internet and video uploads to YouTube, the violation of copyright was made the first and last argument against the new technologies , without ultimately preventing their implementation, distribution and acceptance.

The AI-supported production of visual and audio works was also immediately rejected by prominent sources. For example, Noam Chomsky suggested talking about plagiarism software instead of artificial intelligence, since the AI ​​draws on existing works by countless unknown authors. The question that now arises is: doesn’t an artist do that too? Does an author’s work produced with natural intelligence (NI) represent an original achievement that is not influenced by any prior knowledge? Or isn’t his creativity also fed by countless experiences and memories that he has collected and stored over the course of his life and which consciously or unconsciously find expression in the act of his creation?

So isn’t the comparison between NI and AI simply about the different purely quantitative access and processing options for data? Is human creativity so unique and individual that computers cannot generate it? More recent findings and experiments show the opposite. In tasks that explicitly asked for unconventional solutions, machines already performed better than humans, even if there were a few significant exceptions.

Ultimately, creativity seems to be just a certain form of processing existing data, not a quasi-inexplicable divine inspiration. AI imitates NI on a global basis, but at the same time its results show how creativity actually works in the biological thinking machine. In doing so, it puts into perspective the act of creation of human ideas that was previously considered unique. The copyright relevance of works of art and music has so far only arisen based on the inherent structure of the individual work itself, regardless of the way in which it was produced and regardless of any external data that was incorporated into the creative process if this is not included in the work »Creation height« can be proven. In this respect, it will likely be difficult to generally justify copyright claims on AI-generated works.

How intelligent this artificial art is, or rather how intelligent one considers it to be, can only be a question of interpretation – and in art, as everyone knows, that is subjective. Every Jeck is different. What one person thinks is intelligent, another thinks is stupid. In touring comparison tests, you will probably recognize the AI ​​because it appears more intelligent than the NI products. This causes an existential insult to the artistic intellect and self-esteem of their human predecessor. Especially because he knows at the same time that this new technology will again destroy entire industries and cause further economic losses.

While the previous changes in the technological environment were always directed at partial aspects of creative activity in which humans still had their irreplaceable function as the intellectual center and director, AI is also attacking this last bastion: we are dealing with nothing less than mechanization human thinking to do. And that’s not all: the artificial brain is immortal, doesn’t forget anything, can network directly, access previously unimaginable amounts of data and process it at speeds that have long surpassed human capabilities. It’s not just the artist who becomes a hopeless competitor to the machine. At least in the realm of necessity. Whether what remains to him will be the realm of freedom or simply that of uselessness is another matter.

In any case, one can assume that the concept of art as we understand it today will disappear and be replaced by a hyper-individualized machine self-empowerment in which the individual becomes an artist and recipient, while at the same time the software industry pits its supercomputers against each other, in the fight for the best machine for the total entertainment of humanity condemned to inactivity.

The onslaught of artificial intelligence is hitting an art that has been struggling since it passed its peak around the middle of the last century. The last attempt to give it meaning by focusing on “political correctness” dealt it its death blow.

The battle of data is accompanied by a programmable global hardware production sphere that can instantly transform ideas into things and make them physically available to consumers. Joseph Beuys’ emancipatory postulate that “everyone should and can be an artist” will then come true in the often misunderstood meaning that people literally become “artists”, i.e. producers of “art”. Except then it’s no longer a thing, because it’s the machine that does it. This is a truly Hegelian and deeply dialectical abolition of the term “art”, which had a good era of around 300 years and is now making way for a new age, to which art now works as an employee from its rich fund.

Moritz Reichelt is a painter and musician, he is co-founder and singer of Der Plan