Many doomsayers have announced the coming end of art and artists because of the increasingly pronounced and surprising advent of artificial intelligence. Some others also claim that the job market will shrink dramatically for millions of people who earn their living in creative and artistic work. And in the universe of their own terms, they are probably not wrong. Moreover, that conclusion would not be far-fetched if one assumes that this technology has the capacity to “create art” - that slippery word - as an indubitable synonym for human art. Even Yuval Noah Harari in his wonderful book Nexus, for example, states this several times without realizing it; although at the same time he stresses that “for now” machines do not have a true consciousness as such, which in effect would prevent them -in principle- from replicating a genuinely human emotional repertoire. This deficiency would imply a structural impossibility of any artistic manifestation of the machine. In these days of abundance of prophecies, I dare to launch one of my own: the human when human is unreachable.
It is probably preferable to approach artificial intelligence - which I have tried a handful of times with results as useful as they are mediocre - as a technology of purification of art and artists. As a rite of thick vapors in which a deity made up of silent and imperceptible elements helps in the discovery of the true nature of each one and of each what. It is not the end of art, it is its purification. The unveiling of what is essentially human when compared to its machine replica. In effect, artificial intelligence would be a more than appropriate tool to know in each specific case and quite precisely who is an artist or what is a work of art. A diluted process of authentication. By comparison, the human -that other slippery word- would end up shining and floating like a bubble made of a precious and light metal. The immaterial copy would be discarded in the presence of human substance.
However, it would be wrong to overlook the amazing capacity -in an uncontrolled and dangerous ascent- that the thousands of artificial intelligences are having to emulate human creations or the fabulous tool that this technology can be for the artist to create. And although it will be increasingly difficult to verify the origin of the things that make up the world, it could well be resisted by evoking all that so narrow but so vast that defines us. The always latent humanity. I suppose that once the perfect replica arrives -it will take some time- the artists will have to look into their most primitive dimension to separate themselves from that which the machine produces in sequences. Words more, words less, to dedicate themselves to art without calculations, without observing trends and avoiding the poisonous spears of the public, that precarious goal -so in vogue these days- well called “virality”.
On that particular point, the pessimists are not wrong. Many artists have fallen into the trap of the algorithm and have submitted their work to what produces some kind of celebrity and attention on social networks. Not infrequently sacrificing their true opinions and sensibilities on many aspects. Hiding their humanity and ironically emulating -in an imperfect way- how these intelligences work. Playing at being soulless and rootless meat machines. An uncertain future awaits them. With that wrong decision they seal their fate and their expiration date. He who applies the formula to satiety -the ideal producer- and ignores thought and careful and attentive reflection on his creation, condemns himself to be replaced by a monthly subscription of barely twenty dollars. It seems that the solution and the alternative is closer than just around the corner. It is a punctual return to each person, to his or her commotion and enthusiasm, to that which the machine will avoid so as not to run the risk of destroying itself. A subject we will talk about later in this space.
Comments