Machine learning creates professional level photographs

"I think in "art" photography this will be more difficult. Art requires an understanding of the human condition".Rickhyman.

A1 is a creation of humanity.

Logic dictates they are part of the human condition therefore why would they not understand it ?

 

To answer my own question....

Because humanity is very special....maybe, God made us special or maybe we made us very special.

Methinks, we like to be very special...a feel good factor.

 

Interesting. I have communicated with automated Twitter accounts thinking they were real people. Hmmm.

 

Hey, JDM, do you have a pic of the shroud of Turin to contribute to go along with that calvary photo you supplied?

 

Hmm... FINE Art requires an
understanding of the Great
Ape condition...

 

The term A.I. is thrown around so loosely it's become a pop culture term with little technological bearing.

The fact is that A.I. doesn't exist because we haven't invented technology capable of producing a true A.I. Humans create these things called algorithms that we mockingly call A.I. because if we close our eyes and turn our brains off we can pretend it's actually thinking.

No piece of computer code no matter how advanced has ever done anything other than process instructions. A true A.I. will have to be achieved via some miraculous base in hardware, not software. Software by definition cannot produce A.I. but simply simulate complex processes via algorithms.

 

From Wikipedia (emphasis added):

 

What other than algorithms do you think would achieve what you are referring to? You do understand, hardwares generally implement algorithms that are hard coded in them, that make them many times faster than software algorithms?

I agree, AI is a technical term based on the fact that it implements certain aspects of human intelligence, like learning and adaptability. It shouldn't be taken literally to mean a machine that has a mind of it's own, but then I am not sure whether intelligence requires free will or free thinking. Here are the first two lines from the intelligence page on Wikipedia:

"Intelligence has been defined in many different ways to include the capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, and problem solving. It can be more generally described as the ability to perceive or infer information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context."

It doesn't mention independent thinking or free will except alluding to self-awareness, which I don't think is the limiting condition for intelligence. Most stress is placed on perceiving and processing information to improve one's adaptability to a given environment.

An exceedingly complex algorithm would be perceived by humans as free thinking or free will.

Many people spend all their lives simply following other people's instructions, understand what they are supposed to do, and then find the most efficient way to achieve them. Are these people not intelligent?

 

It might even turn out we don't have free will at all, at least in the way we've historically come to think of it. Could be we've been mistakenly thinking we were the programmers and not the programmed.

"Artificial" is in some ways better than natural. Photography is artificial. So is most art.

"True artificial intelligence" seems like an artificial way of semanticizing it out of reach.

 

May be, and I am saying just may be, nature and evolution have programmed us the way we behave and think.

Right, and even if we assume there's actual free will, it should come with the freedom to question the paradigm of free will itself. I tend to think that an exceedingly complex algorithm will be indistinguishable from free will, because the complex interplay of factors leading to outcomes is virtually inconceivable to us, the same way a process depending on innumerable factors behave as stochastic.

 

Who really cares about the direction of photography in general. People can argue about AI and whether it produces real photographs and whether it will eventually surpass the efforts of human photographers; such discussions may serve as an amusing pastime. But in the end I'm much more interested in your personal experience and what you have learned from your personal photographic experiences. When machines and programs start discussing their feelings and present me with original insights on their experiences, when they make me smile or even laugh out loud, I might start paying more attention..

 

I find it interesting to consider, not to the exclusion of many other things I care about of course, but in addition to them.

More than an amusing pastime, thinking about such things can be inspirational on a lot of levels. I'm used to this kind of reaction, having studied Philosophy as an undergraduate and then in later years at the graduate level. Philosophers get this a lot . . . waste of time . . . etc. Thinking about abstract, unanswerable questions is related to art and photography in so many ways that the reason to do so seems so profoundly obvious to me. Pondering is one of the great creative forces. No one needs a particular reason to do so.

When I read through this thread, I get something significant about who we are and how we think.

Why, just in my last post, I said this . . .

I think you'll find that born out in my photography. Many of my photos explore personas and artifice, obvious posing, people wearing metaphorical masks, the adoption of different characters. So the whole notion of what intelligence can be artificially produced and how photography could be infused with that, whether by man or machine, is interesting to me. This seems like the perfect place to discuss all that.

 

Fred, I'd still be more interested in hearing about your personal insights (accompanied by some wonderful photos, of course) I certainly do enough philosophizing for ten men - just ask my students. but essentially I'm a story teller and not a philosopher. Whatever insights I have are drawn out of my personal experiences and in term they define how I view the world. This is what I really want to hear: your stories (words and pictures). A picture may be worth a thousand words but a few well chosen comments don't hurt either.

 

Don't you miss the old PN, where such lively discussions used to take place in the photo forums, whenever you would post a new photo. Haven't quite visited your portfolio in a while. Hopefully this weekend...

 

Selife with cell phone, taken on a balcony at SFMOMA. My cell phone is a constant artificially intelligent companion, of sorts. I know it's not "really" an example of AI, but the fact that it knows the names of actors I can't think of is enormously helpful to my day to day existence, not to mention giving me directions when I'm lost and catching slices of life with such ease . . .

 

Wonderful picture, Fred. I really do miss seeing your photographs and reading your somewhat acerbic observations. As for the state of PN, especially the portfolio side, it's pretty grim but I'm hoping that a small coterie of photographers will form and begin to re-create the interesting photographic give and take I used to enjoy so much.. It's certainly not how it was 6 or 7 years ago (or even 2 years ago) but the mechanism is still serviceable. What I said about Fred's work applies to yours as well - absent the acerbic part.

 

"Don't you miss the old PN, where such lively discussions used to take place in the photo forums'

Indeed. Like the photo.

Its more of a love in now.

Those steel rimmed glasses that Fred wears....scary and the nose)...sort of like a Sony A7 something with those great honking lenses.

 

Now imagine yourself being crushed by a huge camera with a heavy lens.

 

My d600bwith a tele has that effect on me.

Am I missing something? cannot claim to be the sharpest pencil in the box.

 

Okay.

Got it.

But posts should be challenged.