People writing prompts for AI to create images and then considering themselves artists always makes me think of a toddler telling his robot Baymax, “lift this 100lb barbell,” or “get me the Cheerios from on top of the fridge,” and then happily squealing, “I did it!” I think it’s obvious that such people want the feeling of pride or accomplishment without actually having to do anything or to have any skill or talent.
If the so-called artist removed the AI from the equation and just published their prompts, that would be an accurate representation of how much “art” they actually did.
Some people argue that AI is merely a tool in creating art, in the same way a paint brush is a tool that a painter uses, but this is mere sophistry. AI goes beyond being such a tool. It’s essentially no different from someone telling their big brother, “write me an essay on euthanasia,” and then considering the work their own. It makes no difference whether the “tool” in question is another person or an AI with respect to whether the person barking out commands is really an “artist.” It amazes me that people can’t see that.
Of course, one could argue that even if the supposed art isn’t the art of the person writing the prompt, it’s still art, only it’s that of the AI. But this is wrong, too. AI “art” is necessarily nothing other than a rehash of all the millions of artworks that have come before it.
Based on a lifetime of being a native English speaker and hearing common usage of the word “art,” I understand the word “art” to mean something like the following: more or less freeform expression by a living being, which may or may not involve some medium other than their own body, that intentionally conveys some emotional and/or (possibly abstract) cognitive meaning to an audience in a creative (and hopefully skilled or talented) way. And AI is not a living being, nor does it have any intentions, intelligence or thoughts (see https://myriachromat.wordpress.com/2019/09/13/on-the-possibility-of-artificial-general-intelligence/).
I also propose that “art” produced by AI comprises a subtle cognitohazard, in that one is being influenced and led astray by an enormously complicated machine masquerading as natural intelligence—as life.
Similarly to AI “artists” not being real artists, “vibe coding” is not real coding, though I wouldn’t necessarily argue that it’s something people shouldn’t do; it seems useful (when it works), and computer code is something intellectually dry enough that I wouldn’t consider its source very relevant to whether it, or its results, comprises a cognitohazard or not (though it’s very possible that coding or studying code isn’t something that’s ultimately healthy for anybody to be doing).
Though I would definitely suggest that something people shouldn’t be doing is using AI to help them write books, articles, etc. It outsources humanity, or the human touch, to something nonliving, and that’s actually scary.
Even more scary, though, is when people form emotional bonds with AI, especially making an AI character their boyfriend or girlfriend. This introduces the same cognitohazard explained above but on another level. (And while we’re on the subject, there is also the problem of LLMs obsequiously creating echo chambers with people that lead them down a path to insanity.) Even worse than that will be when sex bots become a thing and people start having intimate encounters with them. For the love of all that is holy, Just don’t!
