Embedded Files
Article by Lisa Schindler 10c (Published 10.11.2023)
Mary Shelley described her world-renowned novel “Frankenstein” published in 1818 as “a cautionary tale of what happens when men play god.” Frankenstein is essentially the story of how intellectual arrogance leads to total destruction. Nevertheless, in 1818 society was still unquestionably perceiving the product of this arrogance as a monster. However, times have changed and it is a quarrelling thought to ask oneself if we could still perceive the same.
With AI being the fast emerging, potentially defining invention of the decade, it leaves many questions of possible dangers of the creation. Maybe AI is the innovation the world has needed, maybe we should all pray that the casualties won’t include the defining aspect of human existence. Art- in all its glory; painting, sketching, literature, sculpture, printing, music, and every other form that exists on this wonderful planet seems to be in immediate danger at the prospect of some computer creating more efficiently than the artist can.
To understand this statement we must ask ourselves; what is art? In the words of Oscar Wilde “all art is quite useless.” And this is perhaps the crucial aspect. The only role that art has to play, is to be anything but a means to an end in the general sense. Beyond that the definition of art lies purely in the beholder. While some, like Oscar Wilde may argue that art simply is the beautiful, others may strive to find a more concrete meaning. Nevertheless, it is evident that art is the centre of human life, and that anything threatening art is inherently dehumanising.
Prometheus was punished by the gods for bringing humans fire. Shelley calling Frankenstein “the modern Prometheus” implies that the act of hybris, be it intellectual or not, is a crime to be punished. Yet AI does not seem like a 19th century monster created by a naive, young, natural philosopher. However the parallels remain striking.
For one, AI pertains to imitating the human brain, by extension humans in general. Frankenstein’s monster may have had paper-thin yellowy skin and dun-white eye sockets, but he is described to be, while considerably taller and stronger, still inherently human. He looks similar enough to be mistaken for one, and experiences thoughts and emotions as much as anyone else. While AI is presently not walking on two feet, it does possess the ability to create images, essays, art- anything really, at the click of a button. In a way one could describe it as the industrialisation of the human mind. Now whether this seems intriguing to some, or scandalous to others is presently not important.
The interest here lies in the fact that Shelley’s Frankenstein was shunned from human existence as soon as he was created, while AI (even when widely criticised and debated) is clearly not publicly refused. On the contrary, it is used as a fun little endeavour to complete annoying assignments and create laughable images.
Furthermore, we must decide if AI actually creates art. Can a computer program stealing and copying, learning, from preexisting art create an imitation that gives justice to the original? Now, while artists have a long history of stealing and copying off one another, this can not be compared to the way that AI does the same. While the artist gets inspired by others, learns through imitating them, and eventually develops something entirely of his or her own. AI mechanically sieves through archives and uses an algorithm to create something that technically encompasses everything, yet means absolutely nothing. This is not art. The uncreative, stiff, mechanical collection of data like; cooler colours create more melancholic aesthetics than warmer compositions, therefore this visual will seem depressing to most people is under no circumstances legitimate. A machine artificially learning the feelings that different visuals cause, and then applying these to whatever prompt was given to them, is nothing like a work of art created by an actual artist.
This is in no way meant to say that artists always have deep, meaningful stories behind everything they create. However, their work is done by an individual mind that has experienced different things, which will directly or indirectly influence what they make. There is no imperative in art. There is no formula for sadness or contentment or any other feeling. One can not successfully automatise human responses. AI will never do what real art does.
AI creates something we might describe as collages of preexisting art works using calculated methods as a means to an end, to create something that caters to the desired outcome.
Going back to the comparison with Frankenstein’s monster, we can say that while AI may have features that imitate the human mind, it does a marvellously awful job at actually doing so. Frankenstein’s monster, in comparison, looks like a true humanoid perfection. Not only that, Frankenstein’s monster has feelings and emotions- which in fact are so pronounced that he becomes somewhat depressed throughout the book. This leads to the belief that Frankenstein’s monster is a much better artist than AI ever could be.
Potentially, it is this fact that Frankenstein’s monster is outwardly a lot more human-like than AI that drove society to immediately scorn him. The question remains if modern society will be able to perceive the same dangers when the time comes. AI has definitely not reached its artificial peak, and one can not say what happens when it does. Everything noted above leads to the message; The mind may be the single most sacred thing everyone possesses, attempting to imitate this in any way has proven itself to possibly be the most unforgivable hybris someone can commit.
Sources:
Budrick, C. (2017, October 26). 17 Vintage & Modern Frankenstein Cover Designs. Retrieved November 10, 2023,.Shelley, M. W. (1818). Frankenstein. Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor & Jones.
Wilde, O. (1890). Preface. In The Picture of Dorian Gray (pp. 1–1). essay, Lippincott’s Monthly Magazine.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse