Machine learning creates professional level photographs

Yes. The musician and the actor bring their "self" to the production, as does every artist into his work.

It's not the machine art, but the machine "self" that is created by the programmer. Whatever that is surprising or seemingly original that gets made by the machine is made by that programmed "self."

 

The machine is analogous to the instrument the composition was written for and that the musician plays with.

 

Bad analogy.

Artificial Intelligence itself is something qualitatively different from what, for example, a chainsaw is capable of. The reason chainsaws don't make art (except as a tool used by humans) and AI systems might be able to is Artificial Intelligence has a kind of autonomy that chainsaws don't. Autonomy is not as simple as an on-off switch. Like most things, autonomy comes in degree. Just how autonomous humans are can and has been questioned as well. (Are we free from the chains of cause and effect that determine our actions, from genetics, biology, cultural forces?)

Don't be surprised if you wake up one morning and the violin is playing you! Don't just regurgitate Kafka. Learn from him.

 

Art being part of a complex interdependent web of human thought I wouldn't say it's autonomy that is the ruling or key ingredient of art. An A.I. would have to need so much more than autonomy. It would also have to have a sense of itself and ask the very core questions (including the question of free will) humans have been asking and that gave rise to and have been expressed throughout the history of art.

 

I wouldn't say that either. I don't talk in terms of "the ruling or key ingredient of art." You do. All I did was use autonomy to show the difference between a chainsaw and a different kind of machine, one utilizing AI. And you immediately saw that as a ruling ingredient of art. Because that's what you do and how you think. Ruling ingredients! Consider that carefully for a moment and you might just find it's the basis for your essentialist, unyielding, human-centric and myopic resistance here.

 

You said the reason chainsaws don't make art (except as a tool used by humans) is because they don't have the autonomy that an A.I. one day might have.

So you must attribute a quality to autonomy that plays an important role in the making of art, no? Google's self driving cars are autonomous too for the specific things that they have been given to execute, which is driving from A to B safely. That we can make and have a machine that's autonomous in the executing of making art is just that, nothing more.

Maybe it's you who keep picking out words and terms and interpreting them in an essentialist literal way instead of taking them in the context of what was said and of what was responded to. Consider that for a moment.

 

No. As a matter of fact, I've stated over and over again in many threads how I think art is often something shared.

Yes, the emphasis being on the MAKING. I was taking about something we can look for in determining who or what is responsibility for making something, whether it's art or anything else. Please don't twist that into my claiming a ruling ingredient of art. I was talking about the degree of autonomy a chainsaw has from the human who created it compared to the degree of autonomy an AI machine has from the human who programmed it in determining not some ingredient of art but to help determine something about the attribution of who are what makes things.

 

That a tool is autonomous should not be misinterpreted or misrepresented with it having a responsibility (which would be attributing human features to it), regardless if the tool can be said to have been "responsible" in a sense for the executing of the task it was given to execute.

Then I don't understand why you made such an issue out of me stating that art is an authentic expression of the human condition (you can also make that into art is an expression of the human condition if you have such a problem with the word authentic).

 

LOL. I think you may want to attempt to practice what you preach. Read yourself picking out the word "responsibility" and missing the point:

I'm simply using a construct of plainspoken English. You are reading human features into the word "responsibility" rather than paying attention to the context in which I used it. I'm saying the AI machine makes something with more autonomy than a chainsaw does or a cello does. And, so, I think it's perfectly OK to think of an AI machine as making where I don't think of a chainsaw as making.

Don't interpret the term "responsibility" in such an essentially humanist way.

Human free will and the accompanying responsibility don't have the swagger they once did, now that there are good determinist arguments being made by well respected neuroscientists and philosophers. It may just be that the line between man as a strictly free being and a machine as an objectified thing tethered to man's dominion and his chains of cause and effect is becoming blurred. It's not a question of machines being anthropomorphized or humans being dehumanized. I'm suggesting the possibility that the traditional and too distinct dichotomies are becoming an incorrect grammar.

 

How else to interpret it then? If you think it's perfectly OK to think of an A.I. machine as making (as opposed to a chainsaw that's being used to make a sculpture) do you think it's also perfectly OK to think of an A.I. machine as destroying (as opposed to a chainsaw that's being used as a weapon)? If man is not the one responsible for the art that an A.I. makes then man can also not be held responsible for the destruction an A.I. (like a militarized A.I.) can bring and that's a dangerous proposition.

 

The way I meant it. That an AI machine can be responsible for a work of art without that being an essentially human quality. Bacteria are responsible for some diseases. Cigarettes are responsible for a lot of cancer deaths. Genes are responsible for eye color.

I wouldn't assume symmetry in these kinds of matters.

(We have a moral obligation not to murder people. We don't have the same sort of moral obligation to stop all murder. We can try and we can hope that all murder is stopped, but we don't have an obligation to personally go out and prevent every murder that takes place. Yet we have a distinct moral obligation not to commit one ourselves. We have a moral obligation not to drown someone but we don't have the same moral obligation to save someone who's drowning. These questions are complex and debatable, of course, but most ethicists recognize a degree of asymmetry when it comes to fostering good and preventing bad.)

In any case, to answer specifically your question about AI and its potential dangers, while it's perfectly OK to think of an AI machine as making art, it's also perfectly OK, assuming we can pull the plug, to stop it. We may not like the art, we may get tired of its doing such things, whatever. Our having the power to stop something doesn't mean we have power over everything it does, from start to finish. So, for example, if the machine starts making erotic art and children are present, we can choose to stop it. That we can choose to stop it doesn't mean everything it's doing is controlled by us. We might one day see an AI machine run amok and start destroying people or things we don't want it to. There can certainly be horrific unintended consequences. In that case, we should stop it. That we stop it doesn't mean we have complete control over every aspect of its capabilities.

 

If that's what you meant, A.I. art being a mere product of cause and effect then why put so much emphasis on the making? The fact remains that art is an essentially human endeavor which doesn't stop with the production and finished product of art and extends well into the viewing and dialogue of art and into the consideration of something being art. It's impossible to remove the human aspect when talking about who or what is responsible for a work of art.

I was addressing the human role and the moral consequences that arise when we remove it from what an A.I. produces (good or bad). That there's an ON/OFF switch is besides the issue.

 

Do you have 22 hours?! That's what the combined lectures I linked to are now at and there will be more. I listen to them while doing editing work on the computer or when in bed on a tablet with my headphones on.

 

That's the assumption you've made since the beginning of the thread. I get that this is what you, erroneously, believe.

Humans appreciate and understand rocks. That doesn't make rocks an essentially human endeavor and it doesn't mean humans made rocks.

Because cause and effect is how making occurs.

I never doubted that. I'm talking about machines making art, which doesn't preclude a lot of important stuff happening after that, which does involve humans.

Sure it's possible. It's done when the machine is responsible for it.

LOL. That's only because you're lost in theory. And even your theory is off, as I've already explained. There are no moral consequences because we can turn it off if it runs amok. I can say the machine is responsible for running amok and attempting to destroy the world, just as it's responsible for the art it produces. What are the moral consequences of that? If you're foolish enough to believe that because I'm not responsible for it running amok, I don't have a responsibility to stop it, I can't help you. If I learn what caused it to run amok, I'm responsible in the future to program the machine differently. I'm responsible for what I can control and not responsible for what I can't. The programmer is responsible for decisions he makes, not for every result of those decisions. I'm responsible for getting into my car today. But I'm not responsible for an accident that happens that's beyond my control, just because I got in the car. There are aspects of AI which I won't be able to control. Now, that in itself can lead to some interesting moral questions, but it doesn't have a thing to do with whether the machine is making what it's making.

 

We're talking about art, not rocks. Art. Your problem with the quite logical statement of art being an essentially human endeavor (any other way to approach it is simply hypothetical imaginings) is what keeps you from making a rational argument and so far you haven't made any that comes even close to challenging mine. Just because you wish an argument to be true doesn't make it true.

 

The moral consequence does not come from it running amok but from the removal of the human role and human responsibility of what an A.I. produces. This removal might seem benign and even inspirational when it comes to the making of art but will be disastrous when it comes to A.I. being used for destructive and military purposes. It's not that we can turn it off it's that there will be those who insist on keeping it on precisely for its destructive capabilities.

 

It must inevitably refer to the overarching human concept and construct that art is. It can't only refer to the physical thing that is the work of art. Without the human concept and construct the physical object is simply dead matter.

 

Phil, from the beginning you've simply defined art the way you want to and won't admit anything that doesn't fit your definition. You probably see me as having done something similar.

We were at an impasse long ago and it's ridiculous that we kept it up this long, but here are we. I'll just say at this point I'm done.

 

The main cause for getting into an impasse on such topics is when both sides are unwilling to share or can't agree on the very foundation the question(s) must be raised on.

I have defined art as being an expression of the human condition. This defines art in such a wide scope that it includes practically anything imaginable yet without it losing a sense of accuracy in terms of how it effectively points to art being an extension of all the major and intrinsically human themes and questions that have been and keep being asked and expressed through art. In either case, you're concentrating on this or that definition while I'm concentrating on who or what it is then that does the defining. Is it the machine that defines art?

You say the machine can be said to be the thing responsible for the making of an artwork. I say that the making of an artwork is multidimensional and must take into account the viewer (and the potential ongoing dialogue of the work) as well. Something you wouldn't disagree with I think since you've said how you think that art is often something shared. So the artist has a role, and the viewer has a role in the making of a work as something that's being brought to awareness however fleetingly (there are other dynamics involved that both the individual viewer and the artist don't have control over and which will also play a role). The role that both the artist and the viewer play (consciously and unconsciously) is simply not applicable to a machine. Which is not saying that the machine can't be a relevant tool in the making of art.

You may still disagree with this of course, which is fine I guess.

 

I worked at NVIDIA for many years. They are a leader in AI.

Intelligence is defined as problem solving ability. The more intelligent a person, animal, or computer is the better it is at accomplishing a goal or solving a problem.

In photography, what is the problem to be solved? I would content that it depends on the intended purpose of the photography. For portraits and family photos it would be easy for an AI system to do as well or better than many photographers in the near future. Probably true for many landscape photos too.

But where there is "art" there is an artist looking to communicate something. I think in "art" photography this will be more difficult. Art requires an understanding of the human condition. It requires an understanding of relevant emotions and how to evoke these emotions. This is a more difficult problem to solve. Think about how hard it is for an experienced photographer to create this. It is not impossible for an AI system, but it will be much more difficult.