文章大意:本文是一篇议论文。本文主要通过描写Ai-Da机器人创作的作品引出本文的话题机器人创作的作品真的是艺术吗,进而进行讨论。作者的观点是与任何艺术作品一样,对AI输出的欣赏最终取决于自己的解读。
Ai-Da sits behind a desk, a paintbrush in her hand. She looks up at the person posing for her, and then back down as she applies another drop of paint onto the canvas(画布). A lifelike portrait is taking shape. If you didn’t know a robot produced it, this portrait could pass as the work of a human artist.
Ai-Da produces portraits of sitting subjects using a robotic hand attached to her lifelike figure. She’s also able to talk, giving detailed answers to questions about her artistic process and attitudes towards technology. She even gave a TEDx talk titled “The Intersection of Art and AI” in Oxford several years ago. Ai-Da’s creators have also been experimenting with having her write and perform her own poetry.
But how are we to interpret Ai-Da’s output? Should we consider her paintings and poetry original and creative? Are these works actually art?
What discussions about AI and creativity often overlook is the fact that creativity isn’t an absolute quality that can be defined, measured and reproduced objectively. When we describe an object-for instance, a child’s drawing—as being creative, we project our own assumptions about culture onto it. Indeed, art never exists in isolation. It always needs someone to give it “art” status. And the criteria for whether you think something is art are formed by both your expectations and broader cultural conceptions.
If we extend this line of thinking to AI, it follows that no Al application or robot can objectively be “creative”. It is always we—humans—that decide whether works created by AI are art.
Some may see robot-produced paintings as something coming from creative computers, while others may be skeptical, given the fact that robots act on clear human instructions. In any case, attribution (归属)of creativity never depends on technical arrangement alone—no computer is objectively creative. Rather, the attribution of computational creativity is largely inspired by contexts of reception. Through particular social information, some people are inspired to think of AI output as art, systems as artists, and computers as creators. Therefore, as with any piece of art, your appreciation of AI output ultimately depends on your own interpretation.
12. What can we learn about Ai-Da?
A.She has a complex many-sided personality | B.She beat others in the debate on art and AI. |
C.She is capable of drawing high-quality portraits. | D.She can write poems without being programmed. |
13. What fact do discussions about AI and creativity often ignore?
A.That art is content-based. | B.That art can take many forms. |
C.That creativity is closely related to cultures. | D.That creativity is often measured subjectively. |
14. What idea does the author want to convey in the last paragraph?
A.Every coin has two sides. | B.Great minds think alike. |
C.Four eyes see more than two. | D.Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. |
15. What would be the best title for the text?
A.Is AI-created Art Really Art? | B.Will People Accept AI Artists? |
C.Can We Use AI to Create Portraits? | D.Do We Need to Improve AI’s Creativity? |