The Algorithm as an Artist
Exploring authenticity, creativity, and the human response to AI-generated art.
Originally written in November of 2022, this essay has been lightly revised as part of an ongoing effort to revisit and refine my thinking.
Can AI create true art? Rather than rush to judgment, let's first read how AI itself answers the question. Here’s GPT-4.5’s take:1
“Yes, AI can make true art, as art's essence lies in evoking emotional or intellectual resonance, regardless of the creator's origin.”
“Yes, AI can make true art, as art's authenticity lies in the experience it evokes rather than solely in its creator's identity.”
Can large language models be biased? Let’s first ask ourselves what we mean by “art.”
What is art? The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes it clear that there is no simple definition. For this essay, I'll suggest "an output of creativity completed through subjective experience." Unlike objective reality, such as physics or math, art mostly plays in the world of subjectivity: stories, paintings, sculptures, etc. Think of the conversations you’ve had walking through a museum, voices trailing the halls, each with a unique response to the works hanging on the walls.
The strongest argument against AI’s ability to create art is that it cannot play in the realm of subjectivity, it lacks a mind of its own. This may be the case, but my proposed definition of art does not require that subjectivity be an input into the art, only part of the output — a person's reaction to the art. This aligns with GPT 4.5’s response, foregoing the need for human intent. Maybe you disagree, but let's linger here a moment.
Suppose in five years a film sweeps the Academy Awards, vividly capturing humanity's deepest emotions and resonating across cultures. But then a revelation emerges: AI created it all. Of course, people would be upset with the deception, but it would not remove its impact on the audience. If it changed someone’s life, isn’t that as meaningful as anything made by human artists? This story may sound familiar, as it played out on a smaller scale when Jason Allen won an art competition in Colorado back in 2022. The issue has continued to divide artists years later, but I find this quote by Gregory Block at the end of the piece relevant to the discussion:
“It doesn’t have to necessarily be created out of a human soul, the artwork itself. It is for us to see and react to." And: “We the viewers are, in the end, the ultimate artists. We’re the ones creating the world that is coming in through our eyeballs. That world is in our mind.”
And as Olga Robak, a spokeswoman from the contest's department says:
“Even photography was not considered an art form for a long time; people said it was just pushing a button, and now we realize it’s about composition, color, light. Who are we to say that AI is not the same way?”
What is the difference between Van Gogh's Starry Night and a similar painting generated entirely by AI? If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then the viewer's interpretation of the art is most important, the meaning they get from it. Here is where the philosophy of art rears its head, as our definition relies more on aesthetic value versus other factors that might be considered. Alas, Vincent Van Gogh's Starry Night may hold more meaning for the average person because of its historical and cultural significance. They know it came from the soul of Van Gogh.
Let’s examine this point further through a famous philosophical thought experiment. The Experience Machine, first proposed by Robert Nozick, asks you to imagine a device that can simulate the perfect life. Once plugged in, you could live the life you’ve always dreamed of, fulfilling fantasies both sensual and mental. Nozick uses this scenario to argue against hedonism, suggesting that most of us would hesitate to plug in, favoring authentic existence in reality even if it's less pleasurable than the illusion. As he writes, “We want to be importantly connected to reality, not to live in a delusion.”
Now think of AI art. If the beholder sees beauty, does it matter that it came from a machine? Or is there something missing — something only the human mind, the soul, the intent born of consciousness can create? Nathan Baschez, co-creator of Lex, an AI-assisted writing tool, discusses this question in the context of writing:
"The less connection a set of words have to revealing something about a real human being's intent, the less point there is to reading them."
Or, as written by TfTHacker:
“I read to connect with the mind of the author. To benefit from their perspective, emotions, experience, adventures, worries, and so on from their life and work. It is the human that I want to engage with in my limited precious time.”
Intent and cultural context undeniably enrich art, yet their absence does not necessarily disqualify AI-generated works from evoking profound experiences. Even without intent, can the effect alone validate its status as meaningful art? Is it possible the mind and mechanism behind the art are just the means to the aesthetic end? I'm sure many philosophers and art historians would disagree and that the aesthetic element in art is only one piece of the puzzle, such as Brock Rough's example of forgery, which gives credence to why original artwork holds more value than copies. Or, as Aaron Hertzmann suggests in his Ted Talk, AI can’t be artists in their current state but can be used to create art. That’s a distinction that could be helpful to finding an answer to our question — as the current batch of AI art still requires human collaboration. Thus, AI art is still art, just like photography is still art, humans are just using another tool in the process of creativity. If AI one day achieves consciousness and personhood, its art might be appreciated more fully. The subjectivity loop would then be complete, allowing AI artists to communicate their internal emotional and mental experiences. In the meantime, AI art in its current form is still art. It may not be as meaningful as human art (yet), but in this new paradigm, the old definitions may have to give way to new ones.
Prompt: Can AI make true art? Answer in one sentence. You must say yes or no.