Your article on the robot artist Ai-Da’s portrait of the Queen raised some interesting questions on AI’s ability to produce art (But is it art, Ma’am? Robot’s platinum jubilee Queen portrait unveiled, 27 May).
Jonathan Jones, the Guardian’s art critic, argues that Ai-Da fails the Turing test, which requires that a human being should be unable to distinguish output produced by a machine from that of another human being.
While I agree that Ai-Da’s portrait isn’t skilful enough to be remembered as the next Mona Lisa, I don’t think most (if any) viewers could identify that no human hand was involved – in that regard at least, has it not exhibited a kind of intelligent behaviour?
Perhaps the more interesting question is why Ai-Da is not an artist, as Jones suggests. The principal objection seems to be that Ai-Da records, but does not see. Bad art (if that is what this is) is undoubtedly, however, still art.
Indeed, with a team of humans involved in supporting and creating Ai-Da, is this just the 21st century’s iteration of the Renaissance studios of the great masters?
Rebecca Keating
London