Machine learning creates professional level photographs

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by movingfinger, Jul 15, 2017.

  1. Double Helix in every life form

    The same as a CPU in a computer.

    Jeez, will someone somewhere buy Phil a kitten. Me, I prefer a dog.

    Blokes best mate.
  2. Phil, we are not arguing we are having a chat and enjoying each others thought.

    Mates having a BS together.

    "that kind of feeling into a freaking computer chip, and into some computational power?" Phil.

    Phil, have a think. The Double Helix controls . Got it. The CPU controls the computer . Think. both doing a similar task.

    So, let us think, they are both moving on the same path but one is far advanced than the other. So, given time, will the slow coach eventually catch up. Technology is advancing at a staggering rate. Think.

    Today, is not tomorrow.

    Yesterday, flight was just for the birds or should I say reptiles.
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2019
  3. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    I wonder as well.
    Phil S likes this.
  4. The question is Phil.

    Are we yesterday

    And tomorrow we just a minuscule moment in time. .forgotten.

    Maybe that was the plan of the divine. Or, chaos makes it so.

    Nature always decides.
  5. And to be honest- what are we other than a Double Helix.

    A biological programme which governs our actions.

    Simple truth as much as we try to deny that simple fact.
  6. All living organisms are governed by the Double Helix.

    Is this the divine, or, happen sense chance.

    An open end question.
  7. Phil, you come back always. Respect.

    Just for you.

    Do you know what a man of earth maybe, Phil.
    A lantern of imaginings , and inside a lamp.
  8. Goodnight and God bless.
  9. "Well, seems to me that the human mind is more advanced than the computer chip since it’s the former that created the latter. That's a God story." Phil.

  10. " It's not the belief in God per se but the belief in the concept of God that an A.I. would likely have to inherit for it to self-evolve into something independently conscious and self-reflective."

    Good you are still thinking.

    So, let us deal with the philosophy of the God concept and the relevance to our discussion.

    So, from the good book..."humans are created in God's image"

    God created life, so, us being in his image we could also create life.

    Or, evolution moves ever moves forward, and a superior life form is naturally created from the husk of humanity.
  11. We are prove that that the universe is a thinking living entity.

    So, if we except that simple concept.

    Think, all possibilities, are possible.
  12. Those who burn lamps during the day. At night they wonder why they have no light, Phil.
  13. i admire the imagery Phil.
  14. Yeah I got that. I like it for the context you chose. It fits Your words as it fits the OP quite well imo.
    I would also applaud the image without words, it strongly evokes my own interpretation.
    Phil S likes this.
  15. "h, Allen, all the platitudes in the world ain’t going to save our souls." Phil.

    Define souls, Phil. Define platitudes. Your understandings, so we can walk together hand in hand.

    "sk you this, would you genuinely want to be the one responsible for creating an artificial consciousness that labors under the illusion of having a self if you can't even begin to deny having this illusion about yourself, your self?" Phil.

    Nice thought Phil, that I would personally be responsible for artificial consciousness, but their are many gifted folks working in this field of scientific discovery.

    Do not worry, I also think we are something special....unchallenged in our superior evolution gifted by God or happenchance.

    Maybe we are, or, maybe not.
  16. DSC_8736.jpg DSC_8736.jpg Technology, the ever marching soldier.
  17. A very simplistic question is the creation of superior life purely the act of conception between our species? Or, a creation of life from our ability to create life?

    For the believers in the books " we were created in the image of God" so logically it follows that we also have that Godlike ability to create life.

    A philosophical thought. I really don't know.
  18. "would you genuinely want to be the one responsible for creating an artificial consciousness consciousness that labors under the illusion of having a self". Phil.

    Pure unsupported supposition that it would have a superior illusion of self.

    Friend of foe is the answer from me you are looking for.
  19. For the purposes of this thread, it’s important to note that humans are perfectly capable of making platitudinous photos, photos that are trite, cliché, and that can lull us into false or at least very shallow places.

    As opposed to AI, humanness has been elevated and centralized in this thread as if it’s always of great value. As a matter of fact, humans come up with plenty of crap, both in writing and in photographing. Sure, we have hearts and some think we have souls. Neither of those prevents us from shooting each other or falling pray to triteness and dribble at times. It stands to reason that a machine, at times, would create things, including art, of much more significance than some of the things humans create, even if it turns out we all do have souls. Souls aren’t an insurance policy against platitudes or banal photos.

    We give humans the authority to declare things ART. We make ourselves necessary components to art, a rather self-serving and somewhat tautological exercise, IMO, humans declaring that humans are necessary for this or that. But it actually turns out that some stuff declared to be art isn’t and is, instead, trite crap. In other words, part of humanity is our fallibility, and that fallibility probably extends to declarations about art. We may, indeed, have nothing at all on the machines we create, even though we create them, other than through our own self-elevating but still-fallible understandings and declarations.
  20. I’m skeptical of declarations on what the function of art is just as I’m skeptical of assuming art is functional.

    My point is to question the centrality of humanness to art, whether it’s humans declaring what is art or art declaring what is human. Humans view, feel, and appreciate art. Humans also view, feel, and appreciate trees and rivers. But I think it’s important not to overestimate the attachment to humanness of art, especially as, more and more, machines will be creating it. Anthropocentrism has a strong grip. Machine art, as well as space exploration and environmentalism, might help loosen that grip, which has sometimes had negative effects on the physical world around us and, therefore, on humans as well.

    The potential of machine or AI art is vast and exciting as well as humbling. Maybe art will now have the authority to make declarations that go well beyond humanity. We may be the only ones to understand, just as we’re the only ones to understand anything, but art’s declarations, though they may be TO humans, haven’t and certainly won’t in the future be only about what IS human.

Share This Page