PCC answers the question of art-ificial intelligence

A hole has been left deep inside all creativity and our ability to be inventive with our own hands and as such artists have been replaced by “prompt artists” or websites. Hence, they spread like poison which drains any potential of authentic work from being shared with the world. This poison is artificial intelligence and for the past year, it has been expanding itself across all mediums such as tampering in artwork and the entertainment industry.

Pasadena City College’s Visual Arts and Media Studies department hosted a panel conference last Thursday with entertainment industry experts and professors to discuss the possibilities of artificial intelligence in art, innovation, and society.

AI was first developed as a weapon around the same time as the Manhattan Project. In 1946 it was adapted instead for scientific research. And the first step was to program a computer to beat a human being at chess.

PCC digital games professor Peter Gend opened the discussion with a presentation on the history of AI.

“The total number of possible chess games is one by 10 to the 123rd power – I don’t have enough room on this screen to show you all the zeros,” Gend said. “That’s more than the amount of atoms in the viewable universe.”

It’s physically impossible for AI to predict a human opponent’s next move. The best thing AI can do is refer to its database of previous games. Much like human beings, AI learns from experience.

Resistance to artificial intelligence can be attributed to what PCC photography professor Christopher O’Leary described as the “black box problem.” Because AI’s decision-making process lacks transparency, people often respond with hesitancy or distrust. O’Leary did recognize AI in the arts as a “great way to synthesize ideas” and programs like MidJourney as tools to “collaborate with” rather than delegate one’s work to.

As a sobering finish to his presentation, Gend sprinkled in the message of the “Godfather of AI” Geoffrey Hinton, who notoriously quit his job at Google so he could freely express the dangers of artificial intelligence potentially superseding human wit. This phenomenon is referred to as the “singularity point,” which could take longer than the age of the universe to reach.

When IBM supercomputer Deep Blue defeated chess superstar Garry Kasparov in 1996, it was sworn the “death of humanity.” With the weight of humanity on his shoulders, Kasparov beat the computer the following year.

The panelists ultimately faced the question of generative AI in art and its future, economically and philosophically. Is artificial intelligence the death of creativity?

CVL Economics founding partner Adam Fowler emphasized the importance of adaptability at a cultural and political level when it comes to technologically driven transitions in our economy.

“The way to continue to have skills can be really important and what you bring as a human,” Fowler said. “The folks that were flagging the philosophical component of this, I don’t think it’s ridiculous at all. What is the value proposition of a human, right? Great art is based on synthesizing what’s in the cultural zeitgeist, what some very unique experiences have been, and bringing those together in a very unique way.”

To illustrate this, the panelists discussed the case of Rochester, NY, which was once considered a “technological mecca” as the hub for big tech companies like Kodak and Xerox. However, as Gend put it, these companies “drug their feet,” collapsing themselves and an entire city economically because they didn’t adapt to changing technology.

Eric Baum, the Senior Vice President of Marketing at Sony Pictures retold how practical effects were once a huge component of filmmaking.

“They went through a cartridge of whatever it was three, 400 feet of film and about 18 seconds, and we wound up using 8 seconds of that footage in the final film and it cost two million dollars,” said Baum. “Now with the current technology, we do it all in CGI. Not all, there’s still practical effects. There’s still our stunt people worth taking risks of doing things, but it’s changed pretty significantly.”

AI in the creative economy does make for a catch-22. Technological advancements facilitated film special effects. But this cheaper and more accessible option replaced the work that would have once taken multiple people to achieve. Gend pointed to Marvel’s special effects as an example, adding “there’s a reason why I teach now.”

Gend alluded to man-made lakes and how art that is discovered to be generated by AI takes away the pleasure of enjoying it.

“As humans we appreciate what humans make. When they find out that something is synthetic, it’s just not that interesting anymore,” said Gend. “How many of you have ever been to a lake and then you find out it’s man-made and say oh, it’s still a lake. But I don’t think it’s that interesting of a lake anymore.”

PCC film professor John Geiger commented on a question on AI being organic the panel had received during a Q&A that was opened after the presentation.

“I understood it basically was what happens when AI is the equivalent of humans, what happens when they match us one to one,” said Geiger. “And that’s a level playing field competition. But for people in the Arts, it’s always been that way. Our competition is not with those around us, our competition is in AI becoming human. So-called humans are not going to change that the biggest competition is within to be more human. That’s the truth.”