top of page
  • travisstephens38

Art vs AI

Lately more and more the topic of AI comes up among my friends. The ones in education reveal that they encounter computer generated essays and papers filed from students. Photographers fear the unauthorized use of their images. Doctors say it will replace imaging technicians.

(By the way, the above image is downloaded from the internet and bears copyright notation. Thank you to "123RF", whoever you might be.)

One writer friend admitted to trying out a composition program. He said that it transformed a stale profile of his father into a more intersting one when modeled on Hemingway's style. I myself have not tried out the programs. As I understand the rationale of the creators of open access software the collective AI absorbs millions of images, documents and videos and uses the collected data to model its work on. They say by not assigning copyright to the AI work it does not infringe on the work of the original artists.

Which sounds like legal hooey.

One of the more concerned people I know is a painter. Honest to god, he makes a living with his art. He fears AI will destroy artists and I think he has a valid worry. It may replace us all.

EXCEPT... I like to believe the computers are not actually capable of creativity. Art offers an example. If say, computers were around in the 1800s. If the mainframe downloaded images from the masters, from Caravaggio to Remembrandt, then added the Impressionists and the many realists do you think it could have imagined Picasso? Dali?

My hope and belief is that human brains are the font of crazy and that's where creativity lives.

7 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All



Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page