Artificial Intelligence

[Psy-Fi]

Put a bunch of AI-driven robots in football (American or European) or the Olympics, and how fun and enjoyable would that be to watch?

Probably wouldn't hold my interest beyond a single game but I gotta admit that's something I'd like to see.

[SGR]

The whole point of art is that it's not like a sport at all though. It's not about that kind of achievement, it's about channeling some of your inner personal world into an art form so other people can try to access it. And about making beautiful things too.

So that means that I think if an AI could do that and we disregard environmental qualms, then there would still be the obstacle of not connecting with another human being; otherwise it would be fine. AI is just not nearly good enough to do that, and because a particular kind of originality would be required, I think it's pretty far away. It can just make things that look or sound good, that's nothing special, it's not art

It's definitely an interesting discussion - I might argue that though there are very obvious differences (one of the most important distinctions in my eyes is that art broadly does not have rules, while sports broadly do have rules), art is in some ways like a sport in the sense that the value we place on it, at least up til the present day, is very much tied to the human element. Humans are the throughline, and in both endeavors, mind and body together first must conceptualize (for art: creative idea/form of expression/medium, for sports: deciding to practice, planning a routine, etc), and then actualize (for art: the physical act of creation, for sports: training, competing, taking supplements, etc).

To your points about where we're at with AI 'art' now, I don't know that any kind of originality is required for something to be qualified as 'art'. But, Oxford defines 'art' as the following:

the use of the imagination to express ideas or feelings, particularly in painting, drawing or sculpture

Where we are today, I don't think what AI is doing could qualify as 'imagination' by any definition of the word - so that's what would disqualify its creations as art in any strict/technical sense. If we're talking layman's terms though, what it creates is art in certain a way, specifically if a human has used the AI creations to buttress their own art - in other words, in isolation or in a vacuum, what AI creates is not art, but once a human uses the creation for their own creative endeavors, it is art (holistically or as a piece of the whole: as the human imagination was involved in using the tool, similar to how a painter might use a specific paintbrush, or a specific paint).

This whole distinction could be turned on its head if we ever get to the point of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence), where the machines can learn on their own and replicate the abilities of human intelligence - if we ever are to get there, the distinctions between a human imagination and an AI "imagination" might be so blurry as to seem non-existent.

[SGR]

Probably wouldn't hold my interest beyond a single game but I gotta admit that's something I'd like to see.

It would be novel, I can't argue that. 

My guess though is, like you said, it wouldn't retain interest like professional (human) sports leagues do today.

[Psy-Fi]

It would be novel, I can't argue that. 

My guess though is, like you said, it wouldn't retain interest like professional (human) sports leagues do today.

The Jetsons Football 🏈

[Trollheart]

I think the real litmus test would be to say to an AI program "Create a work of art but do not refer to or use any other artist's work, don't base it on anything already created; make something entirely original that only exists in your own imagination." I doubt it could do it, because as you say, SGR, AI really at the moment can only replicate. You can ask a Chatbot to write a story in the style of Dickens or Tolstoy or anyone else, and it can. But ask it to create an entirely original story without referencing any other works, I don't see how it could.