AI in Painting: More Discussion -432

[@christophedevos3760]

Thank you for mentioning me. I'm boxing above my intellectual weight here, but I was referring to the Chinese Chamber thought experiment of Searle, and I think that what I have said above could be related to what he points out. And I don't know if you ever have read the book "Gödel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstädter, (which also have this kind of 'mind vs. artificial intelligence'-like reflections) but the whole question reminds me of Gödel's incompleteness theorems (quoting from Stanford's Encyclopedia of philosophy:"The first incompleteness theorem states that in any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of arithmetic can be carried out, there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F. According to the second incompleteness theorem, such a formal system cannot prove that the system itself is consistent (assuming it is indeed consistent)")... In my own simple interpretation this sounds like: AI trying to 'outdo' itself ('aemulatio') is not possible?

[@allenvoss7977]

Is it a tool or Cheating? This should be the question. Last I remember there’s no rulebook for art , but let’s touch on something that hasn’t been talked about yet. Ethical concerns , particularly regarding copyright issues related to the datasets used to train the AI models. For example, what if your prompt says something like, “ in the style of John Singer Sargent? “ Is this cheating or worse? What do we do with this ? Reject it, or learn from it ? This just gives me more questions. Is this different than going to a museum and learning the style of Sargent by staring at his paintings for hours ? Or taking photos of his paintings and studying them? Fascinating subject, Paul. Context matters should also be discussed here. Let’s say in a competition , should AI work be prohibited, or at least considered inappropriate ? Thank you, Paul.