Can artificial intelligence be an artist?

At a time when the impossible has become closer to the possible, we stand in awe and amazement at the capabilities of machines. Complex, controversial questions come to mind. One of these questions, which has begun to touch the doors of artistic discussions: Can artificial intelligence be an artist?

For decades, art has been viewed as the highest and most sublime expression of humanity and its values. It is the language of feeling and a true translation of what is deep within the soul. It is a reflection of life's conscience, a mirror of contemplation, memory, and nostalgia. So how can a machine, without a heart, childhood, nostalgia, sadness, or joy, delve into these worlds, contradictions, and emotions? How can it "feel" to create art?

Yet reality presents us with astonishing scenes that confound this certainty and belief. Artificial intelligence algorithms produce artistic paintings that appear to have been created by the greatest artists and visual artists. Applications compose music capable of stirring emotion, and applications write poems and short stories with a truly literary and cultural character. Some have even begun using artificial intelligence to create films, design fashion, or even write dramatic scripts.

Here, we face an intriguing paradox: How can a machine that doesn't understand the meaning of beauty create it? How can a computer application, based on data analysis rather than emotion, create?

In fact, what AI produces does not stem from an inner experience or philosophical vision, but rather from its ability to process vast amounts of data, analyze patterns, and combine different elements to arrive at a seemingly “creative” result. It imitates, composes, and rearranges what it has learned from human art, but it does not invent from nothing, as an artist does when he creates a world from within himself that did not exist before.

However, it cannot be ignored that these tools have become truly influential in the art scene. Many artists around the world have begun using AI as an aid in the process of creating and producing art. It is used to generate initial ideas, suggest color palettes, formulate complex geometric shapes, or generate new rhythms in music. In this context, it is not viewed as a competitor, but rather as a tool that expands the artist's horizons and pushes them to explore areas they would not have ventured into on their own. Indeed, some artists have found AI to be a kind of "reflective mirror," showing them a new angle of themselves or encouraging them to break out of the traditional molds they have long been accustomed to.

But the question remains: Can the tool used to produce art be considered an art in itself?

To understand the answer, we must consider the meaning of "artist." An artist is someone who produces a vibrant work from the heart of their experience, from an emotional moment, an existential stance, or a deeply held feeling. He transforms pain into tone, loss into color, and memory into a visual scene, who sees the unseen and feels the unspeakable, then translates it into a language that others can understand without words.

Artificial intelligence does not live, so it does not grieve, love, or yearn. It is a device that generates based on what it has learned, and does not invent feelings. Perhaps for this reason, some believe that no matter how clever artificial intelligence becomes, it remains a “simulated artist,” not a “real artist.”

However, some, particularly technologists and technologists like me, have a different perspective. We ask: What if, in the future, we could program artificial intelligence to feel? What if we trained it to experience the meanings of love, loss, and nostalgia? What if we created an artificial memory for it and introduced it to scenes of childhood, loss, and heartbreak? Would it then be closer to a true artist?

This approach opens the door to a broad horizon that transcends art to pose an existential question: Can artificial intelligence replace humans in their most private domains? When will it become "semi-human"? Can artificial emotions emerge that are convincing to the point of deception? I truly have no immediate answer, but the rapid and accelerating development of artificial intelligence research and applications that the world is witnessing may provide us with indications and insights into the humanization of machines and their interactions.

But even if we do that, there remains a gap that cannot be easily bridged, because art is not limited to feelings alone, but rather to the human context in which it is produced, the environment, the contradictions, the suffering, the companionship, the daily details that are not taught but lived. It is a complex composition that algorithms do not easily capture, no matter how advanced they are.

Perhaps with time, and perhaps after years of "feeding" artificial intelligence with everything the human spirit has produced, it will succeed in convincing us that it "feels," but the question that will remain unanswered is: Are these feelings real or artificial? Can an artist be born from equations and algorithms? Or does art, at its core, remain the preserve of those who possess heart before talent?