为什么艺术将战胜人工智能
1 分•作者: foundress•10 个月前
人可以被击垮的方式有很多，而我记得自己被击垮的方式更是数不胜数。日复一日地面对自己，真实地感受到自己的存在、自己的过程、自己的脆弱，这并不容易。
我一次又一次地站起来，不断努力，有时朝着同一个方向，也经常从头开始。我感觉，对于我们人类来说，终极的创造力就是无中生有，无论是创造一个“人”，一个产品，还是一件只有少数人才能理解，却能让他们有所感触的古怪艺术品。
你通过除了自己以外的渠道，让多少人感受到了情绪？死亡是不可避免的，它以其贴近和真实而美丽，除了你留给那些记忆有限、时间也有限的人的记忆之外，这些其他的渠道也是讲述你故事的方式。
所以，为了成为你自己，你需要创作，需要解读，需要将你自己的观察转化为每个人都能体验的有形结果。
我今天去了古根海姆博物馆，我比以往任何时候都更确定，艺术将是少数几个能超越人工智能和我们人类的东西之一，尽管我们在日常生活中是如此的平庸，与艺术相去甚远。为什么？
这是一个简单的计算。艺术不是完美，不是美丽，甚至不是相关性，它通常也没有信息，也没有任何意义。但它是一种传递的产物。它是一种形式，通过这种形式，你可以将当下、今天、这个世纪的非常人类的体验放大到大众之中，如果他们愿意接受的话。
现在，如果你用硅基智能来完全复制同样的东西，你也许可以创造出效果和产物，但没有传递。我们只有对与我们亲近和熟悉的事物才有强烈的感觉，而且很少会对他人的感受感同身受。也许会有一两个人类对树木有感觉，甚至更多的人对狗有强烈的情感。然而，我们大多数的感受都指向我们自己，或者指向以某种形式存在于他人身上的我们，无论是父母、配偶、孩子，或者仅仅是所爱的人。我们爱着我们自己，也爱着其他人，我们在他们的痛苦中看到了自己的痛苦，如果这种痛苦就在眼前，如果受苦的人看起来、说话甚至受苦的方式都和我们一样，我们就会更加深刻地感受到它。
这让我相信，人工智能艺术只有在融入人类体验后才能起飞，而不是作为独立的产出。
我走到博物馆中间弯曲楼梯的台阶上，意识到我有多么怀念创作的实体性。
背景中随机播放的音乐冲击着我的耳朵，我幻想着一个三明治、一罐 Celsius 饮料，躺在阳光下阅读那些在我之前的人写下的、关于在我之后的人的模拟小说。这一切都像一个美丽的模糊，一种放纵，一种从我的屏幕及其对我的注意力 span 的算法攻击中逃脱的享乐主义。
查看原文
There are so many ways to be broken and even more ways I can remember being broken myself. Showing up for yourself day in and day out, having this too real, bodily realization of your own self, your own process, your own fallability is not easy.<p>Time and time again, I have gotten up and pushed, sometimes in the same direction, often reinventing from scratch. I have felt like the ultimate creativity for my species is making something out of nothing,whether it is myself as a person, a product or a completely wonky piece of art that only a handful of people will get to see, yet one that will make them feel something.<p>How many times have you made people feel things via a channel other than yourself ? Given death is inevitable and beautiful in how close and real it is, these other channels are ways to tell your story, besides the memories you leave with people that have limited RAM and limited time too.<p>So in order to be you need to make, to interpret and translate your own observation into a tangible outcome for everyone else to experience.<p>I was at the Guggenheim today and I was never more sure that art is going to be one of the few things that survives AI and us humans, as banal and far from it as we are in our day to day. Why?<p>It’s a simple calculation. Art is not perfection or beauty or even relevance, often it does not have a message either or a significance of any kind. Yet it is an artifact of transmission. A format through which you take a very human experience of the moment, the day and the century and scale it into the masses, potentially, if they are open to it.<p>Now if you were to replicate exactly the same via silicon intelligence, you perhaps would create the effect and the artifact, without the transmission. We only feel things strongly about what is close and familiar to us and very rarely empathize with others. There might be a human or two that feels for trees and even more people who have strong emotions for dogs. However, most of what we feel is directed towards us or some form of us living in the other, whether it is a parent , a spouse, a child or simply a loved one. We love ourselves amongst others and see our pain in theirs and feel it even more acutely if it is around the corner and if the sufferer looks, talks and even suffers just like us.<p>This makes me believe that AI art will only take off morphed into a human experience rather than as a standalone output.<p>I walked over to the steps of the curvy stairway in the middle of the museum and realized how much I miss the physicality of creation.<p>The random music in the background was hitting my ears and I was fantasising about a sandwich , a Celsius can and lying in the sun reading analog novels from those before me, who wrote about those ahead of me. It all seemed like a beautiful blur, an indulgence, a hedonistic escape from my screen and its algorithmic attacks on my attention span.