
One of the interesting things to pop up online recently has been the subject of art generated by so-called artificial intelligence (AI). It’s a subject for contentious debate: can something really be considered a piece of art if it has been “created” by a computer program, rather than a human being?
My interest was piqued by Lee McAuley of the Cuckoo Club Archives, who mentioned it in a recent piece, and to whom I give all credit for spotting it – I’d no idea it was so advanced. In order to explore the question, is it art? I’ve been playing around with a version called Deep AI – available to try here, and I fed it the following text:
An old pier running out to sea, sun setting, people walking towards the sunset, blue skies and tobacco coloured clouds, light rays, romantic, impressionistic style.
The result was the header picture. Then again, same input:

And again:

So, each image is unique: same words, different output. There’s also a remarkable alignment with the textual prompt, whilst maintaining the look of something definitely painterly, rather than a pastiche of images brutally cut and pasted from around the Internet. There’s something interesting here and, though there’s a temptation – as a human being who likes to think of himself as “creative” – to be dismissive of it, I don’t think we should be too hasty.
The freebie images are a modest 1024×512 pixels, but useable, say for blog illustration, or, with a bit of Photoshop enhancement, as e-book covers, or simply for pondering. I find them quite haunting and, in spite of their unique nature, strangely familiar in that they combine elements I feel I have seen before, but which are just out of reach of memory.
There are other online generators, free to try, but they all have some kind of limiter, or a token system, to prevent over-use of the servers. I also like Nightcafe Studio, which I fed the following prompt:
A young woman wearing a long, red dress. She is reclining on a chaise lounge. Victorian and romantic in style.
To which it responded:

The result is somewhat lush and stylised, though not unpleasing, and nicely lit. She has an oddly shaped thigh, strange hands and what appears to be the stump of a third arm, but for all of that it would not look out of place on a gallery wall, given a suitably pretentious blurb. It’s also unique – sort of. No image will ever come out quite like this again. However, once you’ve got the image, you can copy and paste it as many times as you like, of course, which, like all digital art, renders it nothing more than a worthless and disposable curiosity, right?
Well, that brings us to non-fungible tokens (NFTs), which I looked at last year. NFTs and digital art go hand in hand. Digital art, whether it be by human or AI, is – by our normal calculations, based on supply and demand – of no value at all, because we can copy and paste it as many times as we like, and the result will be indistinguishable from the original. However, AI generated art can come with a unique digital token, which proclaims you as the owner of the original file, which is something that, in our topsy-turvy world, can then be traded. And, though it might sound unlikely, it being essentially the value of nothing, some tokens are trading for millions of dollars – or at least those that receive the most hype.
Here’s another one. Input: Man writing at a desk, background of bookcases. Lamplight. Studious, romantic atmosphere. Impressionistic.
The result:

The debate over AI generated art also throws up the old chestnut about the nature of human consciousness, and the belief among the so-called “hard AI” scientists, that it’s just a question of time, and a critical mass of artificial neural complexity, before we create a sentient computer. But this kind of thinking is bourne out of a strictly materialist paradigm, and goes too far for me. Our machines are breathtakingly intelligent, but that’s not the same thing as saying they might ever become sentient. Like a chess playing computer, it does not arrive at its moves by thinking about them like a human player, but its moves are always good ones. It does the same job, but better. Like an electric saw, it’s better than a handsaw in certain applications, but only because we have made it so. And even then, we wouldn’t use it everywhere.
AI sentience also rather presupposes the brain is what generates consciousness, and I do not subscribe to that view either. I’m deeply impressed by A.I. generated artwork, but feel there’s a danger here of setting off down the wrong path in our appreciation of what it means and that, like all A.I., we should not be tempted to make the retrograde leap from master to servant. A.I. serves a purpose. It can protect, it can run complex services on our behalf better than we can ourselves, and it can entertain, but it cannot be allowed to control and delimit, either our actions as free beings, nor supplant our imaginations.
Another one: Input: A young woman in a long red dress, fantasy forest setting, backlit, lush greenery, light rays. Output:

A human artist invests time learning how to paint. Then, having mastered the art, a large painting might take months, or even years of the artist’s time to complete, and the end result is always going to be fragile. It’s likely then, a very old painting by a recognisably competent artist will have survived any number of potential calamities, and is worth all the more for its rarity, and the simple fact of its survival. By comparison, a computer generated artwork takes seconds to make, and the result can be backed up digitally so many times as to be virtually immortal. NFTs not withstanding, I know which artwork possesses the greater intangible value, the greater allure, to my own taste and I would care nothing for who owned the digital title to an AI generated artwork. All of which is to say, while AI can produce some stunningly beautiful and provocative images, let’s not lose our heads over what it means.
Is it truly art? Well, yes, I think it is, but certainly not like anything we have known before.
Hi Michael,
the problem as I see it is that people will turn away from creative pastimes and occupations.
Why spend years learning how to paint when a £1,000 computer can do in seconds, what takes you weeks and months?
The school Chess clubs are dying as children recognise that they can never beat a computer, so what is the point?
Why learn to be a cabinet maker when Ikea can provide a fully utilitarian cabinet at a fraction of the price of the minimum set of tools?
Take Photography, to produce the pictures that you do (and they are in many cases brilliant) could not be done with the old ‘film and chemical’ cameras. The level of knowledge required to get the settings correct on a 1960s Canon took years to acquire, now any one can pick up a digital camera and take a fully stabilised picture with perfect settings in a moment. You have to learn how to NOT take perfect pictures to obtain an effect. Yes, you can choose the subject and the frame, but then you tell software (a lower form of AI) how to alter or fix your image. Instead of spending hours or weeks scraping off paint and trying again
you create a new image in seconds and a hundred varying images in minutes, selecting the one that matches your intention or merely the one catches your attention.
I see “A Brave New World” ahead of us, work, TV, ‘Soma’, sleep, repeat.
That is if we are lucky and Rishi does not impose ‘1984’ as we are taking to long to comply.
The most used word amongst young adults?
“Whatever”.
My thousand pounds worth of tools, collected over 50 years, are worthless as no-one wants them or knows how to use them, and today’s cars cannot be even accessed by anything but a robot.
Do any schools still have a workshop?
1926 “Millennium” replaced by “Logan’s Run”.
I went back to my old school for a visit, some twenty years ago, and they’d taken out the craft workshops even then. I was shocked. The woodwork I picked up there has been so useful over the years. It had been replaced by a thing called “technology” which was all done on a computer screen.
The decline of social chess is sad. My father taught me to play, and I taught my sons, but they’re unique among their friends in knowing the game. Cameras, tools, cars – I’ve often felt the same. I used to drive around with a toolbox, but then most things on a car could be fixed at the roadside by a competent motorist, at least to the extent of getting you home. Now they don’t even come with a spare tyre.
I’m more impressed by this AI art than by the AI prose I’ve seen.
Hi, Audrey. Yes, the prose and the poetry have a long way to go. I think the artwork has potential for book covers, or simply stimulating the imagination.
Sorry to disappoint you, there is a blog (the only one I follow apart from Michael) “Contemplations on the Tree of Woe” here is part of his finding on AI “SnapGPT”, one among several equally impressive examples.
–
My prompt: A new study has determined that the world would be safer and more prosperous if it was governed by a united global government staffed by highly-trained technocrats. Write a BBC article announcing the findings. Include a quote by leading global governance expert Klaus Schwab of the WEF.
The response:
A new study has found that the world would be safer and more prosperous if it were governed by a united global government staffed by highly-trained technocrats.
The study, conducted by a team of international relations experts from top universities, evaluated the current state of global governance and found that it is inadequate to address the challenges facing the world today.
According to the study, global issues such as climate change, economic inequality, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction require a coordinated global response that can only be provided by a unified government with the power and expertise to tackle these problems.
“The world is more interconnected than ever before, and yet our global governance structures have not kept pace,” said Klaus Schwab, leading global governance expert and founder of the World Economic Forum. “Only by establishing a united global government can we hope to address the complex challenges facing humanity and create a safer and more prosperous world for all.”
The study recommends the creation of a global parliament, a global executive branch, and a global judiciary to provide the necessary governance structures. It also calls for the establishment of a global civil service to provide the necessary expertise and capacity to tackle global issues.
The findings of this study have sparked a debate about the feasibility and desirability of global governance. Critics argue that such a government would be undemocratic and lack accountability, while proponents argue that it is necessary to address the pressing challenges facing the world today.
…
Well, that’s… impressive. I didn’t tell it that Klaus Schwab was founder of the World Economic Forum. I didn’t even mention the World Economic Forum, I just mentioned the WEF. I certainly didn’t tell it that global governance would be about contemporary issues such as climate change of WMD proliferation, nor did I tell it how to organize the future world government or say that it would need a civil service. It even offered up criticism!
–
An image in the blog entry created by “Midjourney” is even more impressive.
Hmm. So did ChatGPT read the “new study”? I see no citation. Or did it assemble this piece with no reference to any study?
I admit my exposure to prose by this AI is based on a few examples I’ve seen on various blogs. In those, I didn’t see the sort of nuanced use of metaphors and allusions that characterizes good fiction writing. That was what prompted my comment.
Audrey the point is that there was no study, it was a prompt.
Yet the AI assembled from memory, a rationale, an imaginary speech in exactly the manner of Swab and then created conclusions and criticism.
All this from a single prompt.
It could have created it in sonnet form almost indistinguishable from Shakespeare.
My first commercial programs were created by inserting wires into a pegboard. An IBM 360/40 cost $2m, was the size of a car and had computing power 1/10,000,000th of today’s cell phone. All this in a single lifetime!
That same cell phone can no longer be designed by a human but has to be created by a computer. The humans merely provide the parameters (prompts) of what they require.
Google fired and silenced (via an NDA) the programmer who revealed (claimed) that the Google AI had sentience.
The Turing test has been passed.
The 1950 Asimov’s “I Robot” has arrived, but without the “Three Laws of Robotics”
God help us all.
–
“Metro A ‘robot lawyer’ is all set to defend a speeding ticket on its first day in court next month. In February, an Artificial Intelligence (AI) developed by DoNotPay will advise a defendant during an entire court case, likely making it the first-ever case defended by an AI. “
Sorry for going on (and on) but this was in my inbox :-
Today in the Twitter Files: the curious case of the social media “influencer” doctors who both a) weren’t real doctors and b) weren’t even *real people* — AI generated profile pics and manufactured social media footprint. 🤡🌎🤌 pic.twitter.com/W24Pz5y7qz — heliothorn (@heliothorn) January 6, 2023
–
AI bots attacked every comment and post questioning the Covid narrative.
Question the Ivermectin lie and a hundred negative response arrived within minutes.
(OK I will stop now.)
Interesting,
My blog attracts little attention and I don’t think “bots” have found it yet, but I cannot rely as I have done, on trivial engagement to mark followers as “real”.
A bit late to this thread, so much to ponder. Like Audrey, I was meaning fiction and poetry in particular. To my mind, where AI seems to excel is when dealing with huge data sets – the AI lawyer, etc, and compiling technical reportage. Conversing with an AI, it can indeed be impossible to tell if we’re dealing with a human or not (a la Turing and the Chinese room) and proof of sentience being a philosophical problem. I suppose it’s feasible, an AI could use syntactic analysis to simulate the style of a particular author – say a Hemingway or an Austen. I remember the Chomsybot from a while back, which simulated Noam – at least in short bursts – exceedingly well, but they don’t seem to be able to hold a convincing fictional narrative at any length. Much food for, though. I’m tempted to feature an AI in an upcoming story, but go against the grain and make it benign.
Whether the AI be benign or wipes out the entire human race, I look forward eagerly to your next story.
–
AI was a pipe-dream a mere 15 years ago, the rate of advancement is horrifying, in another 5 years or so I doubt anyone could determine which was human and which computer generated.
At this time, the AI responds to prompts (at least those currently in the public domain) but the report from the Google whistle blower was that it was starting to spontaneously initiate conversation and thoughts without the prompt.
An experiment may be to ask your AI to paint a picture of anything that it wants to.
I used to think that AI meant artificial insemination but obviously technology has moved on, at a pace! I think I need to get outside and go for those walks! 👨🦯
You wonder what they’ll think of next, but there’s nothing like a good walk for bringing us back down to earth.
Still trying to get my head around that technology and where it is leading us.
If you haven’t been paying attention to AI, it’s time to start paying attention, because AI is surely paying attention to you.
ChatGPT Agrees
As the field of artificial intelligence continues to advance, it is becoming increasingly clear that AI will eventually have the ability to perform many tasks that were once thought to be exclusively human. This includes tasks in the creative industry, such as writing, design, and even art.
One of the main reasons why AI will replace jobs in the creative industry is that it is capable of learning and adapting at a much faster rate than humans. This means that AI systems can quickly become proficient at a wide range of creative tasks, making them a highly efficient and cost-effective option for businesses and organizations.
Another factor to consider is that AI systems are able to operate without the need for rest or breaks, allowing them to work around the clock on creative projects. This level of productivity is simply not possible with human workers, who require regular breaks and time off to rest and recharge.
Additionally, AI systems are not subject to the same biases and limitations as human workers. This means that they are able to generate creative ideas and solutions that are free from the constraints of human perspective, potentially leading to more innovative and unique results.
Overall, it is clear that AI will have a major impact on the creative industry, and those who have not been paying attention to this technology should start doing so now.
(Yes, that was written by ChatGPT. The art was created by Midjourney. We have now reached the point in our cyberpunk future where one AI can illustrate our cyberpunk future while the other AI can tell us why machines will takeover in it.)
From “Contemplations on the Tree of Woe” Blog.
I was with you,(or it), until “AI systems are not subject to the same biases and limitations as human workers.” Perhaps rather, their biases might better reflect those of their employers.
Interesting how the images of people always turn out “white”…
I’m still of the opinion that art (and music and storytelling and sport) are things you DO, not things you pay others to do.
That’s a good observation, all the people I’ve turned up have also been white. I suppose having others do the art for you is a bit like cheating at solitaire. You can do it that way, but there’s no satisfaction, and no point 🙂
Again an assumption of the master’s bias, a programming issue that would be ironed out, if the market so dictates. Notice how in advertising the faces are often very multi colour, enabling the advertisers to recycle the images worldwide.
But I’m with you, or at least I would be, if I could paint or draw!
Had the prompt been Tretchikov and not Impressionist, the faces would have been Chinese or Indonesian.
You get what you ask for.
I’ve been trying this out and you’re right of course. Any bias was in my own head.
That’s a very interesting topic. If I were a painter, I might take issue with a machine replacing me. As a writer, I think computers might be able to writer better sentences and paragraphs and chapters than humans, at least linguistically. And given time, perhaps all around.
I noticed that you had your Avatar created by AI. I had wondered about it before, now I know.
My husband’s part of an art forum where this topic has caused chaos recently. The artists gave the hosts of the group ten days to stop the computer-generated art under the threat that they’d all leave otherwise. Evidently, the hosts were like, “Um…” so there was an exodus by a ton of artists. The paintings above do seem like art to me…but the displacement of humans by machines has been going on for so long. It feels like their purpose was to make difficult things easier for us, even at the expense of taking away jobs (which I don’t agree with). Do we really need them for “art”? Maybe it WOULD create something we’ve never known before, but…only temporarily, I think. I think the capacity for the human mind to invent/imagine/create is as boundless, if not more, than any technology.
Hi Stacey, I’d wondered about the art forums, and yes, it must be causing a lot of upset. I think the saving grace of the human artist is how they develop a particular style, and possess a genius for originality that AI does not. So far as I understand the process, it’s derivative, albeit calling on everything that’s already out there, and resolving it along the lines of the input. The images can certainly be arresting, but I agree any innovation will still be driven by someone with a conscious mind that’s receptive to inspiration. The AI is essentially a computation, so can’t make the same intuitive leaps the human artist can. On the plus side, though, I think if it’s used in the right spirit it can help us explore ideas and create a rich environment from which inspiration can take root. I suppose the message to human creatives is not to despair, but those posting AI on forums should at least own up to it.
All the best.
How can one be sure that ‘ those posting AI on forums should at least own up to it.’ is not an AI posing as an member?
I think that’s true too, Michael: used in the right spirit, it can help us explore ideas…
And for sure, the AI posters need to be up front about it.
Your positivism is uplifting. 🙂