Although AI is able to generate good-looking images from a textual prompt, it is too sure of what it is creating – it is being asked to draw things correctly and it is intended to do so. Human drawings, on the other hand, do not have to be correct to be creative. My writing will begin with this conclusion.
I often wonder how these “beautiful” AI-generated images are created – I use quotation marks here to indicate that I tend to disagree with the adjective, because I often find these images to be mechanical, impersonal, unconscious patchworks. Surely there are methods of writing THE “spell” to produce an interesting work that can visually engage the viewer, such a process of finding the right prompt, however, later I learned through my own experimentation that it takes many trials, and hopefully sometimes one can find something that fits well with one’s imagination among ten or more works that AI has generated on request.
I tried to use the same prompt to ask for a film festival poster with a rabbit in the centre, using different image-generating AIs. This choice of rabbit animal had nothing to do with my personal preference, but with a poster design requirement I had recently heard in a friend’s task. The results I got are shown below, and I noticed that these AI-generated contents either got the textual information for the film festival wrong (also because I did not specify which film festival) or tried to depict a realistic animal regardless of style (I did not specify a style unless it was mandatory to produce the image).
To provide some examples of human-made posters as a control group, I simply typed “rabbit poster” into the search box on Pinterest, a social media service where people can store their inspiration in image form and display it in the form of pinboards. The contrast is already apparent here: being creative is more about “showing without showing exactly”, and the rabbit is sometimes seen only as lines or colors, sometimes the animal is indicated by the limited presentation of certain traits such as long ears and/or whiskers.
Unlike many popular ideas that put a question mark over AI’s potential to replace human creativity, I am on the side of asking why AI will not replace human creativity, although it could be argued that I have not fully experimented with everything that image-generating AI is capable of.
If we first consider the mechanism of generating visually appealing content, it has a lot to do with machine learning algorithms and training models with complex datasets. In order to provide the generated image, the algorithm first identifies and extracts patterns and structures from its datasets and then uses this information to create new content that matches with the previously defined characteristics (Reinecken, 2023). This process is data-based, which means that it is essentially a transfer and transformation of information, rather than the creation of something that has never been created and stored before. For this reason, a certain amount of “soul” is missing from the process of creation.
Human creativity, however, is based on the neuroscience of the human brain, which has a distinct ability to recognize and generate new ideas or possibilities while we are going through emotions and subjective experiences (Reinecken, 2023). Moreover, human creativity does not follow a single process of identifying logical patterns and structures and then extracting these fragments precisely from a data set that has been modeled and encapsulated as a static, closed, even dead circuit. No two human brains are supposed to think alike, because the process of thinking itself is bound up with cultural, social, and individual differences that provide ever-changing variables in the production of ideas and images. If one argues that AI can also operate on a dynamically changing model that integrates randomness every few minutes. Does that bring the AI close to a human brain in terms of creating new things? The answer is still no, because it is so rare that we human realize the role that our body plays in generating emotions and new ideas – our creativity. Simply think of how often ideas surface while we are walking or running, not to mention that emotions are a human response to the world around us.
That was perhaps too far from my argument that AI cannot produce images in the same way as humans, because the AI does not get the idea of “showing without showing exactly”. But my reflection on this question of the existence of creativity stands, and it actually points to the idea of “embodied creativity” (Davis, 2012), that we live and experience through the flesh of the body, and therefore human creation can only be seen as a product bound up with the participation of a human body. In conclusion, the reason why AI will not replace humans in the creation of images goes back to the most fundamental difference between these two existences: while one exists only virtually, the human exists as a physical creature, therefore with the utmost capability for experience, reflection, love, renewal and becoming.
References:
Reinecken, E. (2023). Is generative AI replacing human creativity?. Retrieved from https://simpleshow.com/blog/generative-ai-replacing-human-creativity/
Davis, J. (2012). Science of Creativity Moves Into the Body. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/tracking-wonder/201211/science-creativity-moves-the-body
Hi Xiyun, thank you for your blog post entry. I really enjoy this topic and therefore really liked reading your article. I agree that AI is in essence unable to be creative as creative is defined as “the use of imagination or original ideas to create something”. No ideas are original as all inputs are all ready existing works. However, I do think that Humans together with AI can be creative. In my opinion, humans can put in the creative part, and asks AI to deliver the actual work. BTW, I find most posters generated by AI to be pretty good looking, but our opinion on that can of course differ.
Hi Xiyun! Thank you for this insightful blog! The capabilities of generative AI have been a frequent topic of discussion lately, especially its prowess in creating diverse images. This brings up concerns about AI potentially overshadowing human roles in the creative sector. However, after delving into this piece, it’s evident to me that while AI is powerful, it has its constraints. The uniqueness of human creativity and the depth of our soul simply cannot be replicated. I’m reminded of a favorite movie of mine, “Jojo Rabbit.” In the article, there were screenshots and two related posters from Pinterest. These rabbits symbolize Jojo’s personal journey and growth, encapsulating his innocence and courage. Entrusting AI with the task of designing a movie poster might not always capture the movie’s essence, as merely placing two rabbits on it could miss its deeper meaning. I wholeheartedly believe that AI can’t eclipse genuine human creativity. Yet, a lingering thought remains: given that humans can’t process information as extensively as AI, how might this abundance of knowledge shape the evolution of AI’s own “creativity”?
Great article! I agree that generative AI can not be creative in the same capacity as a human can. Furthermore, I’d like to add that images created by AI can not be protected in any way using copyright. This means that designs are not inimitable and using AI generated art in a business context could saddle organisations with problems concerning imitation by competitors and malicious parties such as scammers.
Hi, thanks for sharing you idea’s. This is a subject I’ve personally also thought about, and for the most part I’ve come to the same conclusion as you, but as just summing up your points would be boring I’ve got a couple of contrasting views and counterarguments I’d like to share. While I don’t view it possible for AI to replicate the neurological processes of our brain, I’d say that in some ways this may be more of an advantage for the creativity of AI than it is for us humans. The main reason being that art often starts with observation, which an artist can abstractifty and turn into a painting, which for example would by why portraits are so commonly made and Dutch artworks often feature canals and grachts, it is simply a common observation. AI doesn’t necessarily have such a limit, because it cannot observe in the way us humans do, rather all of it’s observations are taken from the dataset it is trained upon, and this dataset can be magnitutes more abstract and odd than reality is, allowing AI to generate images we may not have ever even thought of. Of course, the fact that artworks are usually based on observation also means that human artworks have a strong tendency to be derivative, even if unintentionally, they may be influenced by the old masters. In the case of AI, you can pick and choose which works you feed it, allowing a certain degree of maniputability as far as influencability is concerned, that you can’t exactly get from a flesh and blood person.
And of course, the largest concern, and often largest defense of human art is the lack of soul in artworks made by machines. But whether this is a reality or simply a cope is not clear. In many ways the fact that to us humans, this ‘soul’ is something abstract, something that can’t be easily put into words, may be our detriment. After all, if AI advances to a point where it can understand which elements, which lines, contribute to an artwork feeling human, an AI may be able to ramp up this feeling to a point where AI art feels more human than human art. However this is all contingent on whether AI will be able to understand such a concept, which remains to be seen.