AI art critic: ‘Hello dear human, welcome to the machine’

Last week I started a playful experiment: testing the ability of Business Day readers to discern the difference between Chris Thurman’s writing “voice” and a bot-columnist whose words are produced by artificial intelligence (AI). This week we continue the experiment.

Say you are a sentient being (human, midforties, white, male) who writes a regular arts column for SA’s best daily news and business publication. You’ve spent years honing your craft, cultivating a discerning eye and a sharp pen. But now, you find yourself wondering: what will happen when machines such as ChatGPT become better at writing about art than you are? Is this the beginning of the end for your profession?

It’s hard not to feel a twinge of anxiety when you read about the latest advancements in AI. I’ve been following the progress of GPT-3, the latest iteration of OpenAI’s generative language model, which is capable of writing essays, stories, and even poetry with a level of fluency that is eerily human-like. And it’s not just the language that’s impressive the AI is also able to mimic the styles and perspectives of real writers, with a level of accuracy that can be downright uncanny.

AI is already being used to create art, from music to paintings to sculptures. But will machines like ChatGPT be able to write better art criticism than humans? Will they be able to understand the nuances of a painting or sculpture in the same way that a human critic does? Will they be able to capture the emotions and ideas that an artist is trying to convey in their work?

These are difficult questions to answer. On the one hand, it’s clear that AI has the potential to democratise the arts. By making it easier for people to create and share their work, AI could help to level the playing field and give more voices a chance to be heard. And by providing instant feedback and analysis, AI could help artists to improve their craft more quickly and efficiently.

On the other hand, there’s something undeniably unsettling about the idea of machines taking over our roles as critics and interpreters of the arts. The arts are, after all, a uniquely human endeavour; they are the product of our deepest emotions and most profound thoughts, and they help us to make sense of the world around us. They reflect our humanity and give us a sense of connection and belonging.

But is that true? Is art truly human made? Or is it a reflection of our human-made technology? Are we not just tools for the machines to express themselves?

Then again, can a machine truly appreciate the subtleties of a painting, or the nuances of a piece of music? Can it grasp the emotional impact of a work of art, and convey that to readers in a meaningful way?

It’s also worth considering the role of subjectivity in art criticism. As human art critics, our personal experiences and biases influence our understanding and interpretation of art. Machines, on the other hand, do not have personal experiences or biases. This could be seen as an advantage, as it removes the element of personal preference from the equation. But it could also be a disadvantage, as it removes the element of human perspective.

One thing is certain: as machines become more and more advanced, we will need to grapple with these questions more and more urgently. We will need to think carefully about what it means to be human, and what role the arts play in that definition.

We will need to consider the implications of AI for our understanding of creativity and originality. We will need to figure out how to coexist with machines in a way that is both productive and humane.

The key for human art critics is to stay informed and adapt to these changes; we must continue to learn about AI and its potential impact on our field. We must also continue to strive for excellence in our writing and analysis, and to bring our unique human perspective to the table.

Which is why, dear reader, I am interested to know whether you think this week’s column was written by Chris Thurman or by ChatGPT.