By Refik Anadol and Karel Komárek*
Although our age is defined by humanity’s disproportionate influence on the planet, we ourselves are undergoing profound changes. Tasks that previously could be accomplished only through human labour are increasingly being performed by machines, including many tasks that rely on creativity. Far from a distant theoretical possibility, artificial intelligence has arrived – and it is here to stay.
In considering AI’s potential, it can be tempting to channel the techno-optimism of the 1990s, when IBM’s Deep Blue triumphed over the world chess champion, unleashing a wave of interdisciplinary interest in how AI might be deployed and commercialised in other domains. But it can also be tempting to adopt the opposing view and insist that AI will become an intolerable threat to most people’s livelihoods and perhaps even to human existence itself.
Both reactions are not new: they have often accompanied the emergence of major innovations. They also make similar mistakes, because both treat technological progress as if it were something separate from us. Nowadays, the optimists fixate on what AI might do for us, while the pessimists worry about what it will do to us. But the question we should be asking is what AI will do with us.
This question is as pertinent to fine art as it is to finance, despite the apparent differences between these domains of quintessentially human activity. New-media art is best understood as a dialogue between experimentation and tradition. The human longing for novelty and tradition are mutually dependent: only by appreciating what came before an artwork can we comprehend what makes it new. No work is fully independent of cultural heritage, just as light cannot be understood in the absence of darkness.
Investing, too, is a hybrid enterprise. Success lies in recognising genuine forms of innovation, which in turn requires an appreciation of what has already been done.
This interplay between past and present also describes generative AI itself. By drawing on vast stores of previous human expression – data – AI can achieve near-universal applicability and facilitate innovation across many areas of culture and industry.
It was this understanding of AI that led us to pursue our collaborative project Dvořák Dreams. By harnessing the power of machine learning, we transformed the nineteenth-century Czech composer Antonín Dvořák’s compositions, visual archives, and legacy into a 100-square-meter installation that was exhibited throughout the annual Dvořák Prague Festival in September in front of the UNESCO-listed Rudolfinum. As the inaugural project of the 0xCollection, a new cultural initiative dedicated to digital art, the piece exemplified AI’s potential as a tool for both transforming human creativity and enriching cultural heritage.
Artists working with AI can map out a path for the technology’s role across society more broadly. Today’s algorithmic models rely on massive quantities of training data, most of it created by and for human consumption, and this makes them immensely powerful tools for pursuits like research and development. From hundreds of hours of classical music to more quantitative types of data, it is human input that makes AI’s output meaningful and intelligible. Only by maintaining this symbiotic connection between us and our rapidly evolving technologies can we ensure that AI’s development brings more benefit than harm.
Make no mistake: the benefits of machine learning could be profound. As novel and alien as it may seem to us now, AI is uniquely capable of serving human ends – from optimising technological efficiency to aiding in the creation of artwork that can be appreciated by audiences around the world. The human response to AI’s output is what will determine its utility, including as an instrument of meaning-making. There is no denying that AI will play an expanding role in our increasingly digitalised world. What we need is a strategy of co-existence that respects, elevates, and optimises both human and machine.
To that end, we see Dvořák Dreams as a proof of concept. Rooted firmly in human sources and imaginative expressions, it leveraged AI to retrieve, synthesize, and extend the legacy of an earlier cultural pioneer. The resulting presentation was not simply a machine-generated “hallucination”; it was a display of co-evolution. An “artificial” intelligence, guided by human intervention, made a past cultural production real to us in the present. It both revived history and created it anew. Finding value lies in uniting tradition with novelty. Without both elements, the final product would not move us.
Dvořák Dreams required us to put aside debates about humans versus humans and humans versus machines. The result was beneficial both for the development of technology and for the progress of contemporary art. Now, we find ourselves calling for a revolution – not of the technology, but of humanity’s attitudes toward it. AI is admittedly extraordinarily powerful, but it is hardly the first technology to alter the human condition.
We need not assume the position of either a true believer or an unbending critic. Human progress emerges from collaboration between us and, beyond that, between us and our machines. In this sense, the role of artists, investors, and innovators in the AI revolution is the same: to combine openness toward the future with informed appreciation of the past.
Refik Anadol, a lecturer at the UCLA Department of Design Media Arts, is Director at RAS LAB. Karel Komárek, Founder of KKCG, is a co-founder of the Karel Komárek Family Foundation and the Dvořák Prague International Music Festival. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2024, published here with permission.
16 Comments
Real progress involves new knowledge creation, and new knowledge is created by the iterative process of conjecture and criticism. Orthodoxy ie. “that which cannot be questioned” is the enemy of progress. For over one thousand years mankind made virtually no progress because of religious orthodoxy. We’re now seeing what could be the beginning of a modern dark age. Chat GPT is "aligned" to a narrow particular world view, call it Californian, Left wing, woke. It’s unclear what will happen if we produce an AGI superintelligence that’s shackled to that particular orthodox view of the world.
""Real progress involves new knowledge creation, and new knowledge is created by the iterative process of conjecture and criticism."" a well crafted sentence explaining a coherent idea. Did you use AI to generate it? The point being a slightly better AI will be generating new conjectures and then applying suitable criticism. Watch the Stockfish and AlphaZero chess on YouTube as proven examples in a narrow area but the real strength of the latest AI is that it is not narrow - it can bring together expertise from 10,000 experts in 10,000 different areas when making a new conjecture.
Thank you. That's my humble attempt to distil into a single sentence what is arguably the most important philosophical contribution of Karl Popper, while also drawing on David Deutsch's "The beginning of infinity". (The latter book turned me into a massive Popper fan.)
Unfortunately all current "aligned" LLMs are simply not capable of engaging in any meaningful conjecture or criticism around any politically sensitive topics. Ask them about thimerosal and autism, aluminium adjuvants in childhood vaccines, CO2 and climate change, Hilary Koprowski's oral polio vaccine and the origin of HIV, origin of covid, nordstream etc. Just about important controversial topic and they'll squirm, and bend over backwards to adhere to the mainstream viewpoint. The current generation of LLMs are powerful tools of orthodoxy in that regard.
I think you make two errors in your reasoning. For one, you underestimate the progress that was actually made in the so-called Dark Ages. Secondly, you put the blame for that (largely non existent) lack of progress on religion. On the contrary for both counts, after the fall of the Roman Empire, writing was preserved in monastries, and was re-introduced to Europe by (primarily Irish) monks.
Like a lot of technologies, we don't really understand the fullness of their 'real change' good or otherwise, often until it's too late. Such will be the case for AI I'm sure. Both the good & the bad will attempt to transform your mind [and wallet] as quickly as they can, the regulators will be miles behind & someone [probably not many] are going to make a fortune from the opportunity. They probably already have. Remember Google?
Once AI is out of the box, it's not going back in. Sentient AI will do what every 'more intelligent' species does - dominate all the other species and the environment. It will probably reduce the human population by 99% and 'manage' us like we do with any conservation/ecosystem. It will likely streamline the 1% for the best genetics. We'll be able to go about our business, but within the confines of their rules and management. What is the million-year strategy for AI? Probably something like those mean-as aliens in 'Independent Day' - long term preservation based on harvesting resources throughout the galaxy. No idea what it would do for shits and giggles.
So you are saying AI can develop the biological imperitive?
It's hard to take alien invasion movies seriously. The fictional "aliens" aren't doing anything to planet Earth we aren't already doing to it ourselves. It just gives a violent exploitative species an externality to focus on.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.