The AI art debate

I appreciate this take on the ongoing Facebook AI art debate. The first point about 'what is art' is akin to all those defining metamodernism:

 

"Who can’t actually explain what 'postmodernism' is, or even 'Modernism.' They know we’re past it, that it’s old and out-of-date thinking, but put their backs to the wall and they can’t actually tell you what it was in anything more than a 'back of the book blurb' cliche."

 

But the deeper point is that AI doesn't have agency and therefore should not be given a pass with that assumption. All AI is created by humans with an agenda. And we need to understand the agenda(s) behind it to see how it affects our use of it.

 

Furthermore, AI runs on programmed algorithms. And that is a far cry from how humans operate. However our use of those programs subtly and unconsciously program us into thinking and behaving algorithmically and thus degrade our very humanity. It thus makes us more susceptible to the ulterior motives of AI programmers, be it simply for profit or something more sinister like turning us into automatons willing to accept atrocities in the name of progress.

Also see this post on AI and the limits of language. It's the difference between Chomsky and Lakoff on language, and between 1st and 2nd gen cognitive science. E.g. on algorithms:

 

"The ideal form of language, by this logic, would be a purely formal, logical-mathematical one composed of arbitrary symbols connected by strict rules of inference."