How can I get AI to "write" a chapter in my art history book?

[CTyankee]

Not interested in using it, but I just wonder how it does its thing.

Would it have insights all of its own (not just compressed art critiques by published authors, such as Peter Schjeldahl, late writer of art reviews at The Newyorker)?

[highplainsdem]

1. Very bad idea. See this Artnet article

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/chatgpt-art-theory-hal-foster-2263711

which I linked to earlier in this reply in GD, and I recommend you check out the other links in my reply:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217702190#post9

[highplainsdem]

2. Btw, please read all of the Artnet article. The final paragraphs are important.

[CTyankee]

3. Actually, this turns out to be what were already glimmers in my mind about AI.

I am gathering materials for my next book, which deals with the artist's command of gesture (basically, altho it deals with pose and symbol as well). This sounds very artsy-fartsy and I wouldn't blame anyone for calling it that.

First, let me explain which are we are talking about. I dwell in Western Art, dominated by Europeans and the Americas. What I envision with AI (correct me if I"m wrong) is a mixture of art history, common themes and language (i.e. contraposto, disegno v. colore, la bella figura, bravuro, cruciform, and the like) used as shorthand for those who "art-speak."

Am I getting this wrong, somehow?

[highplainsdem]

4. What you'll get from AI is a mixture of some correct facts, some parroted opinions (it can't form

opinions of its own), some correct citations, some possibly accurate summaries, some imaginary facts as it hallucinates, some imaginary citations involving real people but referring to something it made up that they didn't do (which is causing more and more headaches for human experts and reference librarians being asked about those nonexistent works), imaginary citations that might not refer to anyone or anything real, and summaries that might have nothing to do with whatever it's summarizing but will sound authoritative as hell even when it's doing nothing but hallucinate.

And it may use terms like contrapposto accurately or may get them completely wrong, but it will sound authoritative either way.

ChatGPT has been called a bullshit generator, by more than a few experts. OpenAI warns that all it generates has to be fact-checked and probably shouldn't be used for anything important.

I'm really surprised that you'd want to use it after seeing that Artnet article.

Shouldn't a book you write be your thoughts?

If you just want AI to be something you bounce ideas off, you're better off talking to friends who know art.

Btw, relying on AI for your writing can also lead to your own creativity dropping out of the process.

See https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217666418#post22 .

[CTyankee]

7. No, I don't want to use it. Just the opposite. I was interested in what AI would do if applied to a

work or works of art. You greatly misunderstand what I was asking here. I wasn't asking for help in doing what I do. I have written 2 books and curated trips to Europe to see and explore further the art I am interested in.

What I was curious about was what limits AI has in regard to art. You confirm what I thought in your post's first paragraph. I now have no doubt that AI will define contraposto with a pic of the "David" as it is now in high school or freshman college courses in art history.

If I asked, for instance. for an example of noli me tangere I would get Bronzino, Titian, Fra Angelico, Correggio, Pontormo, Rembrandt and Picasso. But I get that by a simple Google search.

[elleng]

5. LOLOLOL!!!

[highplainsdem]

6. ??????