Generative AIs produce creative outputs in the style of human expression. We
argue that encounters with the outputs of modern generative AI models are
mediated by the same kinds of aesthetic judgments that organize our
interactions with artwork. The interpretation procedure we use on art we find
in museums is not an innate human faculty, but one developed over history by
disciplines such as art history and art criticism to fulfill certain social
functions. This gives us pause when considering our reactions to generative AI,
how we should approach this new medium, and why generative AI seems to incite
so much fear about the future. We naturally inherit a conundrum of causal
inference from the history of art: a work can be read as a symptom of the
cultural conditions that influenced its creation while simultaneously being
framed as a timeless, seemingly acausal distillation of an eternal human
condition. In this essay, we focus on an unresolved tension when we bring this
dilemma to bear in the context of generative AI: are we looking for proof that
generated media reflects something about the conditions that created it or some
eternal human essence? Are current modes of interpretation sufficient for this
task? Historically, new forms of art have changed how art is interpreted, with
such influence used as evidence that a work of art has touched some essential
human truth. As generative AI influences contemporary aesthetic judgment we
outline some of the pitfalls and traps in attempting to scrutinize what AI
generated media means.

生成人工智能产生以人类表达风格为基础的创造性产出，我们认为现代生成人工智能模型的输出所引起的体验是通过组织我们与艺术作品的互动的审美判断来进行的。