Moreover, we cannot, therefore, be overly concerned with the technological routes that are being taken in AI art at the expense of thinking about AI art from a temporal perspective. We believe that AI art is one of several possible forms of art in an era of accelerating technology. Furthermore, this notion is then used to assert that AI cannot replace human artists but can only appear as agents. Based on the discussion of AI consciousness, there is a tendency to think that AI has not acquired an ontologically independent status and is, thus, unable to create works independently. Moreover, this makes it possible to, therefore, achieve the portrayal of intentions, which is expected to realize the design of an artificial intelligence body with autonomous intentions.
Xu Yingjin argues that in current artificial general intelligence (AGI) research, it is too difficult to achieve the engineering portrayal of intentions and that the NARS system can absorb the reasonable part of the Anscombe intention concept. If an AI has its own universal language, then the AI may have consciousness. Zhao Tingyang asserts that language forms the dialogue between intelligences, and that consciousness occurs in language. Tao Feng believes that AI and art share a common focus on emotion, consciousness, and creativity in addition, the fact that more and more AI programs are creating art shows that AI art is possible, both in terms of research and practice. The current debate on AI “art” focuses on whether such a thing is possible, in what sense, and, if so, how to position it.
0 kommentar(er)
