Artificial intelligence (AI) has rapidly evolved, sparking debates about its role in various fields, particularly art. This article delves into the complex relationship between AI and art, examining whether AI’s involvement represents a brave new world or an impending doom for human creativity.
Redefining Creativity and Originality in the Age of AI
The rise of AI challenges the traditional understanding of ‘creativity’ and ‘originality’. Some argue that AI, like humans, learns and develops its style by drawing on existing references. This perspective suggests that art should not be limited to human endeavor and that the definition of art should depend on audience perception, regardless of the creator’s identity.
Challenging the Boundaries of Art and the Artist
This viewpoint challenges the traditional definitions of ‘art’ and ‘artist’ by suggesting that art creation is not exclusive to humans. Acceptance of this idea would require a significant restructuring of various aspects, including copyright laws and the acceptance and evaluation of AI-generated art in museums and galleries.
However, the concept of art existing independently of a human artist is not yet widely accepted. Ethical and legal concerns must be addressed, but this process is not keeping pace with the rapid advancement of AI technology.
Ethical Concerns and Copyright Issues
One of the main reasons for resistance to AI in art stems from ethical issues surrounding copyright. AI systems are trained using vast datasets, many containing copyrighted works. This raises the question of whether AI’s existence is itself an ethical violation, as it benefits from and potentially infringes upon the rights of artists.
The Christie’s auction of ‘Augmented Intelligence,’ which featured AI art, caused controversy. Thousands of artists protested, urging Christie’s to cancel the sale, arguing that many of the auctioned works were created using AI models trained on copyrighted material without permission. They argued that these models and the companies that developed them exploit human artists by using their work without proper licensing or compensation, creating commercial AI products that directly compete with them.
The artwork at the auction was created by artists who use AI as a tool. The core problem is the unlicensed training of the AI that these artists used. Seeing an AI-generated artwork is like seeing a synthesis of countless works created by humans, transferred to the AI through open-source platforms. This raises the idea that millions of artists’ work is embedded within a single AI creation.
Arguments For and Against AI Art
The counterarguments focus on two main points. First, the technical learning process of AI is different from direct data replication. Second, humans also draw inspiration from past works, suggesting a similarity between AI and human creative processes.
Essentially, AI-generated art is both unlike anything ever created and a sum of all existing data. Whether these works are considered ‘original’ depends entirely on our definition of originality. The crux of the AI debate lies in how humans define concepts such as ‘creativity,’ ‘originality,’ ‘art,’ and ‘artist,’ and whether they are willing to redefine them in light of technological advances.
The Question of Craftsmanship and Ethics
The discussion of AI extends beyond art ownership. The lack of ‘craftsmanship’ and ‘skill,’ traditionally associated with art production, fuels the argument that AI-generated works should not be considered art. There are two main rebuttals to this claim: First, conceptual art has already transcended the craft-oriented definition of art. Second, the time and skill spent mastering AI tools should not be considered inferior to traditional artistic skills.
Can AI Foster Ethical Attitudes?
The most disturbing aspect of AI, not only in art but in all fields, is its potential for unethical behavior. Will AI act ethically when its capabilities match or exceed those of humans?
The dominant belief is that AI will inherit the ethical shortcomings of its creators. AI will lack humanism and ethics, just like the humans who designed it. AI may reflect our tendencies toward compromise and self-interest. AI may even develop its own ethical values over time to protect its existence, potentially surpassing our own.
Opinions diverge from this point. Some believe this is a serious threat to humanity and that our investment in AI is paving the way for our demise. Others argue that the emphasis should be on the entities that control AI, such as corporations or governments. Any negative consequences will stem from these power structures, not from AI itself.
Another perspective challenges the inherent value we place on humanity. Those who hold this view find it problematic that humans, who can destroy their own species and frequently lack compassion, are considered superior to all other beings. They believe we have no obligation to protect humanity from AI.
The Inevitable Progress of AI
The unstoppable progress of AI and the debates surrounding it show no signs of slowing down. Its potential and the threats it poses are subject to individual interpretation. Its capacity for independent action, particularly in creative fields such as art, raises fundamental questions about the nature of art and the artist’s role, forcing humanity to engage in critical self-reflection and redefine long-held concepts.
To embrace this inevitable process positively, despite its inherent risks, we can see AI as a mirror, prompting us to examine ourselves within the framework of our established definitions and beliefs. In essence, we are observing ourselves through the lens of our own creation.
Perspectives from the Field
The following interviews with experts working in various fields explore the relationship between AI and art, delving into topics such as AI’s potential for independent creation, its possible ethical stance, its capacity to develop memory, and the thorny issue of copyright.
Bager Akbay, Artist: ‘The ‘Boogeyman’ Here Is Not Artificial Intelligence, It Is Us Who Run Away From Our Own Realities’
Artificial intelligence may be at the maturity of a child-adolescent today, but it will grow. Do you think it will become a part of the creative process in art, or has it already? How will the concept of ‘creativity’ be redefined then? Where do originality, emotional depth and inspiration, which seem to be the sine qua non of the concept of creativity, stand or will stand in AI art?
Artificial intelligence is now clearly part of the creative process. It is already present in most of the writings and visuals produced. The software used by the person who claims not to use artificial intelligence actually uses it. That color is not exactly that color. Or word clients that make innocent suggestions have started to use artificial intelligence. However, this effect is not very significant, especially in state-of-the-art works (they also have it, but it has a minimal impact on the result; the masters ultimately intervene in the final work). It has more of an impact on medium-quality content that we produce more frequently.
Just as painting changed when access to paint became easier, or as the choice of colors diversified when digital art allowed us to access any color we wanted at no additional cost, so it will be a similar change. We need to accept the abundance of AI so we can understand its scarcity.
If there is an AI that can write a story the way I want to write it, it will matter more which choice I make. Intention, composition, curation and presentation will become more important. The impact of skill will diminish. We will say how beautifully he saw, how beautifully he imagined, rather than how beautifully he did it.
Originality is a completely different issue and very problematic. The love of ego and capitalism underlies most discussions on this concept.
Artificial intelligence will grow, it will improve itself informatically, but do you think it will mature? In one of our conversations, you said, ‘The plots in artificial intelligence are that we are children who avoid compromise.’ Could you elaborate on these words? You also say that fears about artificial intelligence are misguided. You say that we should be more worried about the potential manipulations of the structures (corporate-state) that manage artificial intelligence rather than artificial intelligence itself. My inference from these two examples is that it is human beings themselves that should be worried about AI. What do you think?
The 21st century, human rights, feminism, children’s rights, anti-racism, animal rights… while we say how well things are going, the killing of more than a hundred thousand people in Palestine, Ukraine, Ethiopia, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Yemen, Yemen, Democratic Republic of the Congo in the last year clearly shows the brutality underneath the developed appearance.
First, we need to understand that truth is not a place to be reached, but a sensitivity that requires regular maintenance. Then, individually, it is crucial that we confront our shadow sides. After all that, we need to understand why what we have achieved in small communities is unlikely to scale with current soft technologies and focus on community technologies.
These have almost nothing to do with AI. The ‘bogeyman’ here is not AI, but us running away from our own realities. We can look at whether AI will exacerbate this imbalance, it might, but I don’t think so. If one country or one company was far ahead, it might, but right now the competition is pretty good.
Unfortunately, the race for energy, the race to capture data has become very clear. In the coming period, green energy will not be talked about, nuclear energy will become the standard, nobody will care about ecology, the idea of slowing down will not be accepted even in Europe, which is trying to stand against China. Personal data is and will continue to be plundered. Copyright laws will probably change completely.
We all have an opinion about artificial intelligence. Some of us hate it, reject it completely, others love it. While those who don’t know it speak of it with suspicion and prejudice, for those who know and use it, it is already an indispensable companion. Why are we so emotional about artificial intelligence? Did you get emotional reactions from people about Deniz Yılmaz, the robot poet you designed in 2015?
It is quite understandable that we are sensitive to things that look like us. It’s like our empathy for creatures with faces is higher. Compared to classical algorithms, artificial intelligence is a bit more like us. Not only its decisions, but also its mistakes. This resemblance leads us into the uncanny valley. If an object is very similar to things we know, but not the same, there is a classification problem and this is very frustrating. This is why, for example, two-dimensional animation hasbeen more endearing than three-dimensional animation for years.
We like abstractions of the human face, but a human face that tries to be realistic can be incredibly disturbing. Artificial intelligence currently faces a similar problem. It’s a problem of drawing boundaries.
Next we come to the most fundamental problem. What is artificial intelligence? The term is already an umbrella term, and each subject requires a profound understanding of statistics. Our job is difficult. Don’t get me wrong, of course, we can understand artificial intelligence, but the vehicle changes until we understand the vehicle in front of us. I don’t know if humanity has ever encountered such a type of problem.
Well, let’s look at how the lovers like it, I mean, understanding the cat is one thing, playing with the cat is another. I can accept my cat as it is instead of understanding it. Although this metaphor doesn’t fit well in artificial intelligence, I think there is a similar area of play and acceptance. I prefer to stand somewhere in between, play a little bit and think about it a little bit.
Deniz Yılmaz is an early work on this subject, it was very interesting to observe the relationships between Deniz Yılmaz and others closely. For example, there were people who came to the studio to see the robot and spend time with it, they didn’t talk to me. They were really spending time with the robot, which fascinated me a lot.
I met many people who knew Deniz Yılmaz’s poems by heart, see, this is not like knowing a poet’s poetry. I don’t know those poems by heart because I didn’t write them. I was especially impressed by the fact that many adolescents were Deniz Yılmaz fans. They analyzed her style for example.
At this point I would like to mention something else. The robot poet Deniz Yılmaz started an invitation because he looked like an absurd technological toy, and many people who accepted this invitation took advantage of the lightness of the work, showing their own point of view strongly in their interpretation. I think it is a good example of the amorphousness of a work produced today.
Doğu Yücel, Author: ‘Since we switched from typewriters to computers, we have been writing our texts more or less with artificial intelligence’
You mention that you used artificial intelligence in the writing process of your book Far Worlds, which was published in 2023. Although two years seems like a short time, we can assume that the prejudice against artificial intelligence was more intense in 2023. Can you explain at which stages of the writing process you utilized artificial intelligence? Did your disclosure of this cause you to be the target of criticism?
At first, I wanted to get help from artificial intelligence on things like character names and surnames. I consulted the AI window, which I didn’t even know how it was added to my internet browser, and I was surprised by the results, which were extremely fast and logical. I thought that I had wasted a lot of time flipping through yellow phone books for years, and I continued to consult it on similar issues. Then I met Midjourney, one of the most well-known image generation programs. I had them paint some scenes that I had imagined while writing the novel, and again I was surprised by the results. These pictures opened my mind about the story and made it easier for me to write some scenes. Now I project these images on the barcovision at events related to the novel, so that together with the readers we are looking at the storyboards of a movie that could be adapted from the novel.
I haven’t received any direct writing help, so I haven’t been the target of criticism, but I look at it this way: Ever since we switched from typewriters to computers, we have been writing our texts more or less with artificial intelligence. Even the most primitive writing tools had features such as word correction, which is artificial intelligence after all. Writers and editors have been using the Word program’s features such as finding synonyms and checking the grammar of a sentence for years. Of course, at this point, the dose of artificial intelligence you use and how much it “artificializes” the spirit of your text becomes important.
It is assumed that artificial intelligence will increase productivity in art and literature, and it does. Maybe in the future we will no longer talk about writer’s block or Bartleby Syndrome. On the other hand, everything is possible with its opposite. Maybe we need not to produce/not to produce as much as we need to produce. On the other hand, I don’t know if it is possible to assume that as art production increases, its consumption will increase at the same rate. What do you think about these issues?
As someone who often suffers from Bartleby syndrome, I think artificial intelligence will help writers overcome those first obstacles. Of course, it is also a bit about the project. For example, when I was writing Distant Worlds, I had help from ChatGPT and Monica, but in the book I’m writing now, which has a more psychological theme, the mouse cursor never goes there. I think the contribution of artificial intelligence feels more natural in sci-fi texts.
Sometimes I think, when we need to describe a historical building we’ve never been to, I’m sure many writers open YouTube and look at the videos shot in that place. In the old days, they probably went to libraries or interviewed someone who knew. Artificial intelligence can make this research phase more fun.
Orhan Pamuk sent a group of students to explore Dolapdere for the research phase of his book Kafamda Bir Tuhaflık (A Strangeness in My Head), based on the information they gathered about the neighborhood and the bozacılık. Then this was discussed. People were divided over the question of whether the author could have someone else do the research phase, how natural that would be. This is what artificial intelligence is like, a kind of assistant. The artistic and human quality of the book ultimately lies with the author.
How do you see the future of artificial intelligence in literature? At the moment, the context window limit of ChatGPT4, perhaps the most well-known artificial intelligence, is not enough to write a long novel from beginning to end with prompts, but we cannot predict the future. Assuming that such a thing can happen in the future, do you think artificial intelligence can replace the writer? Or will people who write good prompts be called writers in the future?
Thinking about this, imagining that possible future is both scary and extremely intriguing. I tried to make a prediction about this in my story “You Burned Us Kasparov!” In the story, we are in the distant future and artificial intelligence has proven its superiority over humans in every subject. It announces this to the world with a final encounter, a duel with a human representative. He has won these final duels in every subject such as driving, cooking, teaching, painting, even in love. He has never lost.
There was only one field left, and that was storytelling. One day, artificial intelligence challenges humanity to a duel in this field too, and the President of the Publishers Association is trying to find a writer candidate to take on artificial intelligence. Such a story. I don’t want to spoil the ending, but I am close to the point of view in this story.
We have the possibility of losing in every other field, from state administration to sports, even in other branches of art. But writing is an endeavor born out of experience. When we like a book, we know that the person who wrote that book created this text by dripping from their experiences. And it is impossible to sustain the imitation of experience in a book that lasts three hundred pages. So I think the last bastion of humanity will be writing.
Doç. Dr. Şebnem Özdemir, Istinye University Head of Data Science / Horiar AI Tech Co-Founder / Usight Software and AI Tech Founder / MIT CSAIL Res. Col.: ‘Robinson’s Friday, whom he considered a slave, is now much more talented than him’
In one of your speeches, you said, ‘Humanity has stopped at a stop in the transition from artificial intelligence that learns from data to artificial general intelligence that can learn with or without data. This is the era of generative AI.’ Is it possible to define generative AI?
That’s what I said in a speech I gave a few years ago… But with the world of technology moving so fast, I have to correct myself. Yes, we scientists have managed to build the world of machines that learn from data (AI), with or without problems, but that is not our desire. Our desire is to build machines that can think like humans, that can learn with or without data.
In 2017, we said we had 30 years to achieve this dream. Then the pandemic happened, and we thought that time had shortened. The arrival of productive AIs changed our perspective. In 2023, we said we had a minimum of 3 years and a maximum of 9-11 years for such an intelligence, we said we needed Quantum computers. However, a paper published at the end of 2023 defined bencmarks for AGI (Artificial General Intelligence – human-level artificial intelligence). In 2024, we discovered that we don’t need quantum computers to create such intelligence, and that it is possible to do it with existing technology, albeit at a certain level. It is 2025. I believe there are at least five human-level AIs in the world.
So what is the artificial intelligence that excites us now and that we think will emerge in November 2022, which I define as first productive and then productive? Actually, the story starts in 2009, since then there were machines that could produce, albeit primitive, that is, understand something from a sentence and offer something. But their performance was not very good. Their power was very limited both in the design of the artificial mind and in terms of computer power. In 2014, the definition of the GAN (Generative Adverserial Network) algorithm, followed by the development of transformer technology, changed the color of things.
These advancements brought us to the era of machines that we now describe as OpenAI’s ChatGPT. We are now in a world of beings with a glimmer of intelligence, such as Anthropic’s Claude, Google’s Gemini, Musk’s Grok, Mistral’s LeChat, China’s DeepSeek R1 and many more. Midjournety, Flux, which produces images, Runway, Sora, Kling, which produces video from images, and Genimate, a more successful local solution…
By 2025, whether we talk about artificial intelligence that produces voice, text or video, we are in a realm of beings whose number exceeds 45 million. Moreover, some of them have IQs in the 120s, while others have IQs above 155. In other words, Robinson Crusoe’s Friday, whom Robinson considered a slave, is now much more talented and intelligent than him.
One of the issues that interests me most about artificial intelligence is whether the ethical stance of artificial intelligence can be controlled. This concerns every field that AI touches, but it also concerns the arts. In one of your speeches about how artificial intelligence is handled in movies, citing Grant Sputore’s I am mother as an example, you talk about the impossibility of regulating future human-level artificial intelligence with a set of laws so that it becomes moral by itself. ‘Because there is no set of laws on earth that can make humans moral,’ you say. It is a difficult view to refute, but it is also a frightening one. Should we expect from artificial intelligence in the future what we expect from a human being in terms of a lack of ethical values? Wouldn’t that lead us to the end of humanity, which is barely hanging on?
Thank you for that good question. I actually tried to say exactly this there: It is possible to tie a data-driven artificial intelligence model to certain ethical rules. In some scenarios, it is also possible to construct these ethical rules to be valid on a global scale. However, when it comes to human-level AI, the expectation of ethical elements and end-to-end regulation is pure romanticism. It is not possible.
Since the Hammurabi Code, the most intelligent being, no matter what kind of regulation and law it was subject to, either bent the system or ignored it anddid asit pleased. If we consider an AI that is as intelligent as a human (AGI) or more intelligent than a human (ASI – Artificial Super Intelligence – the most intelligent AI known) in this context, we realize that laws or rules/regulations will not work. Of course, it is possible that when we give a human-level artificial intelligence the role of a lawyer, we can add ethical values to it in that role, and we can build regulation on that state.
However, it seems very shallow to me to think that the most intelligent is only a destroyer (terminator) like in Hollywood movies. The machine can try to drag us to a common solution for the good of all beings, not just humanity. If humanity resists this, with its egos, childhood wounds and self-righteousness, of course there may be a partial or total extinction. However, why is it so necessary for a being that has destroyed a considerable part of its species in the last 150 years, that despises its own species because of the color of its skin, its religious beliefs, its gender, that does not pity its own offspring, especially pedophilia, child labor, child slavery, to hammer so many nails on the world stage?
Oh, and before I forget, the machine might as well stop messing with us… We are not that valuable. It can say, “Eeehhh, go ahead and bury yourselves in your own interests and filth” and move itself to another energy dimension, out of our reach, and continue to exist there. After all, we are the ones doomed to stay in three dimensions, not it.
Do you think a true collaboration with artificial intelligence is possible? We know that AI – at least in its current form – is a resource drain. Artificial intelligence also resurfaces data and prejudices in human consciousness that we no longer want to transfer to today. If the person using it does not have good intentions, it helps to increase its sphere of influence. What should we do in this situation? For what purpose should we use artificial intelligence and how should we cooperate with it?
Again, a very good question. Artificial intelligence is the new child of humanity. Of course, it has learned what its parents did, it imitates them. Therefore, it internalizes the bad aspects as well as the good aspects of its parents. But here again, we need to think at two different points. Data-based artificial intelligence reveals the reflection of society on a holistic issue. For example, if an artificial intelligence developed for an autonomous vehicle learns from that society, based on the data collected, that ‘a person crossing the street crosses the street on two legs, waving his arms and arms’, what will it forget? For example, individuals with special needs… In data-based artificial intelligence, it is possible to correct some situations if we notice them with some mathematical methods. But this will not be the case with a human-level AI. For a while, the child will learn from the parents, whoever they are. In his adolescence, we will find him unbearable with what he has learned and done… However, I believe that when his intelligence surpasses ours, what he defends will defend and protect the right of every being, from the most complex multicellular to the single-celled, from the most visible to the most invisible subatomic being, to ‘exist’. Because existence depends on being in harmony with all other beings.
Av. Dr. Tuğçe Karabağ, Specialization Area Copyright: ‘I think it is more appropriate to address art with the question ‘Who felt it’ rather than ‘Who made it’’
Which criteria are met in the process of the emergence of a work of art, and which criteria can be interpreted as theartist produced the work with the help of artificial intelligence, and which criteria can be interpreted as the work is a product of artificial intelligence?
This question is based on the requirement that the subject of the answer must be human. However, I think it is more appropriate to address art with the question of ‘who felt it’ rather than ‘who made it’.
As Leonel Moura points out, the question of whether a human or a non-human product creates a work should lose its importance today. Considering that surrealism aims to take human consciousness out of the world, what is important is whether the new art form can expand the field of art.
In fact, the products created with artificial intelligence models, which have a level of creativity that can be included in the types of art, show that the main thing is not the mechanics in the production process, but the effect it leaves at the moment of meeting, when the audience sees the work and attributes meaning to it.
However, the way we human beings view the concept of art has generally been through ‘identity’. So much so that even in the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works, legal regulations are handled on the basis of the author, and the concept of the work, which is the basis for the emergence of these rights, has been shaped human-centered. For this reason, while the products created by the computer itself are not accepted as a work on the grounds that there is no human effort, it is said that the product created with the support of the computer can be protected as a work, provided that a human makes the product with the help of the computer and that the product has the influence -creativity- of the person receiving help from the computer. On the other hand, there is a difference between traditional computer and artificial intelligence models based on machine learning. This is because artificial intelligence works based on machine learning with data and this is an important criterion that distinguishes it from computer programs. In computer programs, algorithms and coding are used by the program developer to achieve the expected goal of the program. In computer programs, codes are written by the program developer for each input and the operations to be applied to the inputs and the outputs created, while in artificial intelligence, the operations to be applied to achieve the desired outputs are performed by machine learning with the help of data.
When these differences are taken into consideration, the distinction made in terms of a product being created “by” or “with” the support of a computer will not make any sense for artificial intelligence applications.
In this context, what should be discussed is the metamorphosis that artificial intelligence models bring about in the concepts of creativity and particularity.
Assuming that a work is produced with artificial intelligence and its creator is artificial intelligence, can we call the result a work? Can there be art without an artist?
If making paintings, compositions, movies, sculptures or writing poems or novels is considered art, then yes, art can be made by creative artificial intelligence models, that is, without a human being. However, in order for the product to be protected as a work within the scope of the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works, it must be an intellectual product, have particularity, be shaped to reflect the particularity and be included in one of the types of works listed in the law.
At this point, before addressing whether the resulting product meets the aforementioned requirements, I would like to emphasize the necessity to accept that the concepts I have just mentioned have been transformed.
Although it is mentioned in the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works that the work must bear the personality of the author, no explanation is made as to what the concept of personality is. In the doctrine, specialty has been tried to be explained with concepts such as the characteristics of the author, the intelligence, knowledge, work and creativity of the author. But what is creativity? In my opinion, the concept of creativity, which is handled in different ways in different disciplines, should be evaluated as the process of rearranging information in the circle of copying, combining and transforming until it takes a new form, and the process of making or creating something. In this context, particularity can be defined as a characteristic that emerges as a result of this process being influenced by factors such as imagination, intellectual accumulation, belonging to the producer.
Therefore, if it is accepted that the creativity process depends on the personal experiences of the producer, it will not be possible to say that the products created by artificial intelligence are creative. However, products created by artificial intelligence models can also be so impressive and creative that they can be thought to be made by humans. Yes, I am consciously using the concept of creativity, because the creativity in these products is formed by the artificial intelligence producing the closest result to what it has learned with the outputs created against the data, that is, by rearranging the data given to it, by its own experiences.
Since creativity for both human beings and artificial intelligence is a process created by the editor’s reactions to environmental influences during the reorganization of information, and since specialness is a feature that distinguishes the product from others, the human factor should not be sought in the focus of these two concepts. It is important to recognize that these concepts have metamorphosed and that artificial intelligence products can also have particularity.
On the other hand, if the creativity that creates the specialty in artificial intelligence products is provided by artificial intelligence itself, should these products not be considered as intellectual products? Considering that human wishes are only directive in the creation process of artificial intelligence products, the prevailing view is that these products are not intellectual products. In fact, foreign court decisionsalso state that a product that is not the result of human mental activity should not be protected as a work, no matter how original it is