Twak, ChatGPT or not

Thank you to Chris Thurman for giving carte blanche to slate what was written in the most recent Half Art column (“AI art critic: ‘Hello dear human, welcome to the machine’,” January 27).

I assume the parts of the article I detect to be predictable ChatGPT are not of his own writing. If they are, then what he has written is twak.

First, all the bumf about “the arts are a uniquely human endeavour...” and “… bring our unique (favourite word) human perspective to the table” are clichés a robot should be ashamed of.

Another ChatGPT special on offer is the questions, a plethora of such, all profoundly probing, of course. Five in a row, nogal: “But is that true ... in a meaningful way?” When there is so much, “On the one hand ... on the other hand”, going on in our society, ChatGPT has more than enough to go on.

And then the burning issue of art criticism, where Thurman meets his Maker, which tells him no human response to art can be considered worthy ... big bad bias cancels it. ChatGPT again, playing the man, not the ball. It’s the response, stupid, not the responder that brings meaning.

But the worst — and I am sure Thurman did not write this — is “AI has the potential to democratise the arts”. So, we shall be levelling the playing fields and giving more voices a chance to be heard (lovely stuff) singing “Glory be to Generic Art”, a hymn composed by ChatGPT to allow for originality to be achieved democratically.

And what artist wouldn’t want instant feedback to make his or her art more conformed to the zillion analyses that have been distilled just for moi?

Roger Graham Meadowridge