Speedbumps

“Art” and “intelligence” are words for deep, multidimensional ideas, as are “artist” and “artificial intelligence.” They’re what philosopher Timothy Morton would call Hyperobjects. When we try to wield them in a narrative as regular objects, they become magic wands, plot devices, cosmic keystones, or . When we say things like “painting is so over” or “no one will hire actors anymore” or contemplate the paperclip maximizer or Roko’s Basilisk, we are building narratives around a fantasy of story-breaking magical powers that we attribute to these terms while ignoring the complexity of their actual behavior in the real world. Rather than arguing within the narratives where these terms are absolute powers, I’ve begun collecting what I’m calling speedbumps – observations or assertions that will hopefully slow down conversations that try to zoom, at top speed, from a problem statement to a massive, exciting conclusion. For now I’m sticking to those that apply to art; I encourage you to find your own in your own field.

• Image generators democratize the production of art, not the making of art.
• Machines do not look
• Machines have no narratives
• This art is made out of pixels
• <a class=’internal-link’ href=’/Speedbumps/A%20lot%20of%20art%20can’t%20be%20reverse-engineered’>A lot of art can’t be reverse-engineered</a>
• Artists generally do not work from prompts
• There can be meaning in originality beyond novelty
• Machines do not plagiarize, people do
• Calling something art has economic consequences
• The market sees a source of profit in the effort required to become and remain an artist
• Debates about art are also useful to the people who own the platforms
• Art is not lossless compression of information
• Refusing to Do Theory is a political act
• AI Art is social art