[sh33mp]

>But this runs into a problem - if you don't know that the piece was created by a machine, you might assume intent and judge it as an art. Does it stop being an art when you learn that there was no intent? What if you learn that about a human piece of art?

I don't see this as that big of a problem? Something can be beautiful without being art, but art tends to elicit a different kind of discussion specifically because there is intent behind it.

As a thought experiment, consider a particularly beautiful natural formation (like corals or intricately eroded rock). It can be beautiful without it being art. If someone then told me that it was actually sculpted by a person, then to me it's now art. I can ponder what the person was trying to express when they created it. If someone else then told me the previous person lied and it's really just a natural formation, then it's back to being not art.

If we were able to detect "intent" in an algorithm (although that is a hairy discussion in and of itself - arguably we could consider objective functions intents, but in that case I defer to the individual's interpretation as to whether that's intent or just clean study of a mathematical process), then yes, it would become art.

[js8]

You're right that we exclude "works of nature" from art, despite having objective artistic qualities (being beautiful, eliciting emotions, etc.). In that sense, art must be created by humans.

The question then becomes - is the thing created by AI still considered to be created by human, or by nature? And based on this, we can then classify it as art or not.

[AstralStorm]

Mostly because nature presents little intent. This is also why fractals are not considered art.

If an AI is able to present intent clearly and consistently (uhh, intentionally) then it might be able to produce art.

So far, I haven't seen any purely AI work that meets this criteria. They can have style but lack the "story" quality of the art built on shared language, culture. Essentially grammar and semantics of given art form. Problem is similar to though harder than making AI really understand language.

These system generally end at style which is like an ensemble average of syntax.

[js8]

I don't think we necessarily require intent to consider something as art.

If a pianist playfully improvises, mindlessly, without intent, does that mean she is not creating art? Sure, you can say that her intent is to maximize her own pleasure.. but then, how it is different from evolution?

It reminds me, is intent the same thing as objective? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXQPL9GooyI

[AstralStorm]

The pianist still improvises within the grammar and syntax of the art form, say jazz or pop. (Our devises an entirely new vocabulary and grammar of their own.) This is different from just style add these kinds of improvisation have a set of rules and are very different from form free play.