Very interesting article, Alberto, thanks for sharing!
I find the comparison between watching humans at a competitive sport and creative arts doesn't resonate with me. I too enjoy much more watching humans play chess than AIs for all the reasons you mentioned in your article. But taking that argument and transferring it to creative arts l…
Very interesting article, Alberto, thanks for sharing!
I find the comparison between watching humans at a competitive sport and creative arts doesn't resonate with me. I too enjoy much more watching humans play chess than AIs for all the reasons you mentioned in your article. But taking that argument and transferring it to creative arts like painting, composing, and writing makes little sense to me.
Chess has very clear rules and objectives that allow direct comparison between humans and I enjoy it very much to watch humans compete against each other. But creative arts, for me, is a different story. I don't view it as a direct competition between artists (humans, AI, or mixed) that "holds my breath" like I do with competitive sport like chess. And that's the crucial difference for me
In my opinion, your article conflates liking the creator with liking the creation. Appreciating a great novel or painting is about the work itself, not the identity of the creator (at least for me). If AI can produce writing and art just as original, meaningful, and emotionally resonant as humans, I might like it just as much as if it were created by humans.
Thanks for the comment Heiko, very important caveat there. I thought about this as I was writing the piece. Let me try to respond.
I agree that artistry doesn't compare with sports in that it's not competitive, but my point is not competition per se. I don't only like to watch Magnus play because he competes against another person (or AI) but also because he makes chess beautiful to watch while I can still identify with him as a fellow human.
I understand competition matters a lot to some people, but my argument is really about something else. I used chess because it's the best example we have where AI has mastered creativity in a way that resembles humans yet we keep watching humans play. I agree part of that is the inherent competitive factor but what I argue is precisely that it's not the only factor at play - that the fact that it's humans doing the thing matters *a lot* to us.
You say that the article "conflates liking the creator with liking the creation" and I say those two things are inevitably entwined. I like Magnus' chess because he's Magnus or I like Magnus because of his chess expertise? It's both at the same time. This happens all the time with art and writing and those other, non-competitive forms of creativity.
We can appreciate a great painting by itself but you can't just ignore authorship, the origin, its history, etc. Those more abstract, less visible aspects of creativity are always there, unseen but present.
And to the last point, which is what I thought didn't quite work with my argument. You say, "If AI can produce writing and art just as original, meaningful, and emotionally resonant as humans, I might like it just as much as if it were created by humans." And this is a great point because I have to agree with you. Those people who saw the cover image of this article thought it was great until they realized it was AI-made. They liked it. And, counterintuitively, this behavior makes my point for me: only when we're "tricked" into thinking something is human-made when it's in fact AI-made we can turn off the fact that what we like is humans doing stuff. We don't reject (some people, partly) AI creations because they are creative but because of the missing human component. The more human presence in the creation, the more we like it *if we know it*.
My argument isn't that we won't like it when AI systems do it - people liked AlphaZero games - but that the fact that they do it better than us matters *very little* because we humans don't just seek perfection or the best of the best, but also familiarity. We like humans and it's impossible for any non-human to compete with that, even if they can compete with the creation, they can't with the creators. That idea that we can isolate creation from creator is quite common, but I don't think it's true. It's not that I'm conflating them but that it's impossible to dissociate one from the other.
As a final argument for why I think being human matters, just think about why do we need to anthropomorphize AI systems. Why do we have that urge to make them feel, seem, and appear more human than they are?
Alberto writes…. “that the fact that it's humans doing the thing matters a lot to us.”
Yes, it matters to US a lot NOW, because we are cultural primitives living at the dawn of the AI age, so we are obsessed with the human vs. AI comparison.
Most of the AI commentary is focused on AI as it is now, and humans as we are now. Ok, fair enough, but the status quo of now is not going to last, like all “nows” it’s a temporary phase.
I don’t think most readers really grasp how far along we are in this transition already.
A great many of us have already largely traded real life face to face human relationships for digital strangers on the Internet. Why have we done that? Because we have more control over our experience when interacting with digital humans, it’s easier and more convenient to get what we want. Alberto will talk about AI all day long, but my next door neighbor will not.
Where we are now seems like a half way point to where we are headed.
1) real humans => real humans
2) real humans => digital humans
3) real humans => AI entities
The same dynamic which has me talking to you instead of my next door neighbor will continue to develop.
At some point I will trade you in, and replace you with AI, because damnit Alberto, you don’t look at all like Diane Lane. :-) You aren’t available instantly 24/7 at my command. You don’t always write about exactly what I wish to read, when I wish to read it. And so on…
What I won’t attempt to predict is how fast this transition will unfold. As best I can tell, not even the industry experts can speak confidently to that, so I’m not going to pretend that I can.
Very interesting article, Alberto, thanks for sharing!
I find the comparison between watching humans at a competitive sport and creative arts doesn't resonate with me. I too enjoy much more watching humans play chess than AIs for all the reasons you mentioned in your article. But taking that argument and transferring it to creative arts like painting, composing, and writing makes little sense to me.
Chess has very clear rules and objectives that allow direct comparison between humans and I enjoy it very much to watch humans compete against each other. But creative arts, for me, is a different story. I don't view it as a direct competition between artists (humans, AI, or mixed) that "holds my breath" like I do with competitive sport like chess. And that's the crucial difference for me
In my opinion, your article conflates liking the creator with liking the creation. Appreciating a great novel or painting is about the work itself, not the identity of the creator (at least for me). If AI can produce writing and art just as original, meaningful, and emotionally resonant as humans, I might like it just as much as if it were created by humans.
Thanks for the comment Heiko, very important caveat there. I thought about this as I was writing the piece. Let me try to respond.
I agree that artistry doesn't compare with sports in that it's not competitive, but my point is not competition per se. I don't only like to watch Magnus play because he competes against another person (or AI) but also because he makes chess beautiful to watch while I can still identify with him as a fellow human.
I understand competition matters a lot to some people, but my argument is really about something else. I used chess because it's the best example we have where AI has mastered creativity in a way that resembles humans yet we keep watching humans play. I agree part of that is the inherent competitive factor but what I argue is precisely that it's not the only factor at play - that the fact that it's humans doing the thing matters *a lot* to us.
You say that the article "conflates liking the creator with liking the creation" and I say those two things are inevitably entwined. I like Magnus' chess because he's Magnus or I like Magnus because of his chess expertise? It's both at the same time. This happens all the time with art and writing and those other, non-competitive forms of creativity.
We can appreciate a great painting by itself but you can't just ignore authorship, the origin, its history, etc. Those more abstract, less visible aspects of creativity are always there, unseen but present.
And to the last point, which is what I thought didn't quite work with my argument. You say, "If AI can produce writing and art just as original, meaningful, and emotionally resonant as humans, I might like it just as much as if it were created by humans." And this is a great point because I have to agree with you. Those people who saw the cover image of this article thought it was great until they realized it was AI-made. They liked it. And, counterintuitively, this behavior makes my point for me: only when we're "tricked" into thinking something is human-made when it's in fact AI-made we can turn off the fact that what we like is humans doing stuff. We don't reject (some people, partly) AI creations because they are creative but because of the missing human component. The more human presence in the creation, the more we like it *if we know it*.
My argument isn't that we won't like it when AI systems do it - people liked AlphaZero games - but that the fact that they do it better than us matters *very little* because we humans don't just seek perfection or the best of the best, but also familiarity. We like humans and it's impossible for any non-human to compete with that, even if they can compete with the creation, they can't with the creators. That idea that we can isolate creation from creator is quite common, but I don't think it's true. It's not that I'm conflating them but that it's impossible to dissociate one from the other.
As a final argument for why I think being human matters, just think about why do we need to anthropomorphize AI systems. Why do we have that urge to make them feel, seem, and appear more human than they are?
Alberto writes…. “that the fact that it's humans doing the thing matters a lot to us.”
Yes, it matters to US a lot NOW, because we are cultural primitives living at the dawn of the AI age, so we are obsessed with the human vs. AI comparison.
Most of the AI commentary is focused on AI as it is now, and humans as we are now. Ok, fair enough, but the status quo of now is not going to last, like all “nows” it’s a temporary phase.
I don’t think most readers really grasp how far along we are in this transition already.
A great many of us have already largely traded real life face to face human relationships for digital strangers on the Internet. Why have we done that? Because we have more control over our experience when interacting with digital humans, it’s easier and more convenient to get what we want. Alberto will talk about AI all day long, but my next door neighbor will not.
Where we are now seems like a half way point to where we are headed.
1) real humans => real humans
2) real humans => digital humans
3) real humans => AI entities
The same dynamic which has me talking to you instead of my next door neighbor will continue to develop.
At some point I will trade you in, and replace you with AI, because damnit Alberto, you don’t look at all like Diane Lane. :-) You aren’t available instantly 24/7 at my command. You don’t always write about exactly what I wish to read, when I wish to read it. And so on…
What I won’t attempt to predict is how fast this transition will unfold. As best I can tell, not even the industry experts can speak confidently to that, so I’m not going to pretend that I can.