How Do You Solve a Problem like DALL-E 2?

Kate Wojtkiewicz
{"title":"How Do You Solve a Problem like DALL-E 2?","authors":"Kate Wojtkiewicz","doi":"10.1093/jaac/kpad046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The arrival of image-making generative artificial intelligence (AI) programs has been met with a broad rebuke: to many, it feels inherently wrong to regard images made using generative AI programs as artworks. I am skeptical of this sentiment, and in what follows I aim to demonstrate why. I suspect AI generated images can be considered artworks; more specifically, that generative AI programs are, in many cases, just another tool artists can use to realize their creative intent. I begin with an overview of how generative AI programs, like OpenAI’s DALL-E 2, work. Then, leveraging work by Claire Anscomb, I argue that generative AI programs are a new technique of automatic image-making that affords creative agency to its users, thereby qualifying the images they create as artworks. Finally, I show many of the objections brought against AI artworks—including accusations of plagiarism and artistic devaluation—are due to the social backdrop in which we currently find them, rather than the technology itself. In the end, I aim to open the door to further aesthetic debate concerning AI generated images and art.","PeriodicalId":220991,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism","volume":" 589","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jaac/kpad046","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The arrival of image-making generative artificial intelligence (AI) programs has been met with a broad rebuke: to many, it feels inherently wrong to regard images made using generative AI programs as artworks. I am skeptical of this sentiment, and in what follows I aim to demonstrate why. I suspect AI generated images can be considered artworks; more specifically, that generative AI programs are, in many cases, just another tool artists can use to realize their creative intent. I begin with an overview of how generative AI programs, like OpenAI’s DALL-E 2, work. Then, leveraging work by Claire Anscomb, I argue that generative AI programs are a new technique of automatic image-making that affords creative agency to its users, thereby qualifying the images they create as artworks. Finally, I show many of the objections brought against AI artworks—including accusations of plagiarism and artistic devaluation—are due to the social backdrop in which we currently find them, rather than the technology itself. In the end, I aim to open the door to further aesthetic debate concerning AI generated images and art.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
如何解决《达利2》这样的问题?
图像生成人工智能(AI)程序的出现遭到了广泛的抨击:对许多人来说,将使用生成人工智能程序制作的图像视为艺术作品本身就是错误的。我对这种观点持怀疑态度,在下文中我将说明原因。我认为人工智能生成的图像可以被视为艺术作品;更具体地说,在许多情况下,人工智能生成程序只是艺术家用来实现其创作意图的另一种工具。我首先概述了生成式人工智能程序(如 OpenAI 的 DALL-E 2)是如何工作的。然后,我利用克莱尔-安斯科姆(Claire Anscomb)的研究成果,论证了生成式人工智能程序是一种新的自动图像制作技术,它为用户提供了创造力,从而使他们创作的图像成为艺术作品。最后,我指出,许多针对人工智能艺术作品的反对意见--包括对剽窃和艺术贬值的指责--都是由于我们目前所处的社会背景造成的,而不是技术本身。最后,我的目的是为有关人工智能生成的图像和艺术的进一步美学辩论打开大门。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Disagreement in Aesthetics and Ethics: Against the Received Image The 2023 Richard Wollheim Memorial Lecture Hegel and the Present of Art’s Past Character Perplexing Plots: Popular Storytelling and the Poetics of Murder Aesthetics in Biodiversity Conservation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1