Machine learning creates professional level photographs

Perhaps a little more constructive reply to this ...

When I first get a new camera (or when getting a new TV recently) I set aside a concentrated, quiet four hours to sit with the camera and manual (print or online) and learn the different functions and where they are. I may have to google a few things to better understand them. Then maybe once a week at first, then once a month, now once or twice a year, I will have to refer to the manual again to find something I forgot or refresh my memory on a particular function. Though menus can seem quite complicated, once you get the knack, they’re usually easier than they at first might seem. Also, there are way more functions than one person may be interested in using, just like post processing software such as photoshop. So a lot of the functions can be read about briefly and then ignored in favor of the few that you will likely use. On occasion, I go through some of the functions again to see if there’s something I might find useful that I wasn’t aware of or didn’t realize earlier.

 

Four hours? I spent a week. Or more I then wrote down every setting and why and kept the notes with the camera. I then tried numerous test shots, auto-bracketing, etc. I compared 2k vs 4k video on my 75" UHDTV.(which I calibrated separately) etc. etc. etc. Notwithstanding you previous comment about being lazy and stupid, especially since you don;t know me, I spend "considerable time, even more than you, learning menus. But that doesn;t make them easy or convenient. Then, when you don;t use them for awhile, you have to review the settings and menus all over again. There's a ;lot to be said for when I shoot my film cameras or P&S digitals or cellphone camera. Simplicity, ease, fun are important elements.

 

Computers can't make moral judgments.

 

Right. We agree on that.

But you were putting down the jet for not caring whether people die or not. What I’m saying is that I don’t care that the driverless car can’t make the moral judgment whether saving lives is a good thing or not, I just care that it may be able to save lives. And it may be able to drive itself more safely than a souled human can. I don’t care whether a machine knew that it was making art any more than I care whether an ancient potter thought he was making art. Both can still have made art.

Souls are important to people. I get that. But they’re not important when it comes to what entity can make our roads safer and what entity may make the next great work of art.

 

Are you not aware that humans already make those kinds of judgments? Hospital ethics boards daily decide who lives and dies, who gets treatment and who doesn’t. Do you think they just use their “souls” to make these decisions? Do you think the souled humans making these sorts of decisions aren’t relying on stats and algorithms, considerations of age, etc.?

The simplistic notion that AI will solve all the world’s problems is irrelevant to what I’m talking about, since I’m not suggesting that AI will solve all the world’s problems or won’t create some new ones. Problems don’t magically disappear with new discoveries. I’m suggesting that AI can make art and can make cars that can be programmed to drive more safely than a lot of humans. Those points aren’t addressed by bringing in extreme cases of lauding AI as some sort of perfect magic bullet for all the world’s ills.

 

Can we please take a breath folks and stop with the straw men? I’m not claiming that machines are about to take the place of humans. I’m not suggesting that machines are going to be doing wartime triage or that you’re going to be expected to marry one, give birth to one, or pray to one. Got it? I’m simply stating that stats and algorithms used by machines to come up with results are similar to the fact that humans use stats all the time to make decisions and affect outcomes. I’m saying that machines are capable of making art and that driverless cars may very well prove to be safer than ones driven by humans for a variety of reasons. Will driverless cars have accidents? Most likely so. But there’s a good chance they’ll do better than humans. Don’t make this out to be more than it is. I’m not after your souls. You may remain blissfully prone to put your faith in them. I’m simply recognizing the power of humans to create machines that have certain capabilities that may well be different and in some cases beyond what humans themselves can achieve without the machines they’ve created. If this threatens your sense of humanity, I suggest your sense of humanity is weak. If your way of approaching this is to come up with hyperbole about wartime triage and machines curing all the world’s ills, it’s because you’re incapable of addressing the actual issue at hand.

 

Comparing a camera to the AI machine is like comparing the abacus to a supercomputer.

 

DEGREE is the key for me. I don’t think the degree of sophistication and independence of a camera is comparable to an AI system and I don’t see AI as a tool. That’s because it’s programmed to process information in ways much faster than humans and in ways that allow for countless permutations to be dealt with almost instantaneously. No, this is not a tool by any means. It’s a new form of technology that doesn’t easily fit into old paradigms. Of course, while an AI system may not be as independent as a human (and humans aren’t always as independent as we like to think), it’s far more independent than a camera once the programmer lets it rip. As I said, no comparison. Well, except for one, neither a camera nor AI has a soul. That’s the only point of comparison and irrelevant to my thinking about art. Again, the concept of soul is relevant to a lot of art. The existence of souls is not!

 

I love movies but don’t rely on them for as much of my thinking as some others.

AI without the input of data does not remain mute. AI without the input of data is not AI. It’s not like there’s some shell or body waiting around for data to give it life. This isn’t the movies.

A bicycle is a vehicle, not a tool.

 

On AI, reading academic and scientific articles on the subject and talking to a couple of friends who are involved with it as well as a fairly good working knowledge of the philosophy of mind and consciousness. In science and in philosophy, I try to read both more conservative and more liberal authors to get both sides of the story. In the philosophy of mind, I as often agree with the more conservative thinkers like Searle as with more liberal thinkers.

 

Philosophy and science don’t fit your black and white political categories easily. We’re talking AI and art, not politics. Yes, everything, including AI and art, have political dimensions, but no need to go off on one of your typical political rants just to deflect from your poor reasoning and lack of understanding about the potential of AI for making great art.

 

It’s obvious you’re pretty positive about that. Being positive about something doesn’t make you right about it, though.

At the time, I may not have. Yes, when I have no arguments to make I may very well check out ... instead of ranting about unrelated-to-the-subject-at-hand echo chambers and using other deflective tactics. After checking out, something new may be said that I want to address or further arguments may get formed and I’ll return, still not going on inexplicable, thoughtless, knee-jerk rants about political echo chambers having nothing to do with the discussion.

 

Not interested in joining your league, Phil, or your team or division. By the way, AI might not be able to create a cat video like that. Did someone here say or suggest that AI will do everything humans can do. I thought some of us were just saying AI will produce art. It likely won’t produce Monet’s water lilies ... thankfully. It will likely be much more innovative than repeating tropes of the past and of humans.

 

It’s clear you have no idea what you’re actually talking about. You just keep moving goal posts, obfuscating, changing the subject, deflecting, and using all kinds of other intellectually dishonest tricks such as ranting about progressivism in a thread that has nothing to do with it, to avoid saying anything that can be dealt with rationally. You have not made one clear statement of what you’re talking about, preferring to beat around the bush in order not to commit to anything. I’ve made myself clear in a few words: AI can create art. And I’ve given reasons for it. You haven’t even committed to the idea that AI can’t make art, at one point in the thread actually denying that that’s what the discussion’s been about. Regarding this topic, you’re simply a lost soul.

 

I’m surprised I have to explain this, but I guess I do. I’m not backpedaling on political beliefs I’ve talked about. I’m saying theyre irrelevant to this discussion and you’re just lashing out about political progressivism as a baby cries for its bottle, because you have no coherent thoughts about the subject at hand to present, which has nothing to do with political progressivism. I’m also separating politically conservative views, which I generally disagree with (“conservative” as used in the U.S. which, hopefully, won’t invite one of your anti-American rants) from conservative thinking on philosophical matters, especially in the philosophy of mind, some of which I do agree with. Hopefully, you can grasp this. If not, ask a child to explain it to you.

 

Wrong.

For me, too, though I don’t limit it to what the thing represents and also think it’s about what the thing expresses ... and more.

No, it doesn’t. AI systems make art and they’re not conscious agents. You keep repeating that it takes two conscious agents but you don’t give reasons for saying that. The repetitions don’t add up to a reason. It’s just an arbitrary statement. You say it takes a conscious creator and a conscious observer to make art, which you say is, in part, what the thing hanging on the wall represents. Representation doesn’t require two conscious beings and art doesn’t either. Trees represent a lot to people as does water. Neither was made by a conscious being.

 

What exactly is your interest in my panties about?

You think it’s a political progressive thing not to believe in a soul? Are you kidding me with this? Now you’re showing you don’t even know what progressivism is. Not surprising. I don’t believe in souls because I don’t believe in souls. That has nothing to do with my progressive political beliefs. You’ve just childishly turned “progressive” into your own personal curse word for anything you don’t understand or disagree with. Plenty of self proclaimed progressives are religious. Just not some of us. I even know a few conservatives who don’t believe in souls. Shocking to you, I know. You’ve got this black and white idea about art, politics, science and religion, what they must be. Guess what? They mustn’t be what you think they are or what you claim they are. There’s a broad spectrum of beliefs about art, religion, and politics and all the labels you throw at others don’t neatly define them as easily and simplistically as you’d like.

 

Very possibly. Most philosophy departments in universities are also underutilized. Good philosophy isn’t about winning, and winning and losing has more mass appeal (like sports) than discussions which often have no clear destination or conclusion. So, it stands to reason that philosophy forums and departments are underutilized, especially in today’s world of short attention spans and the desire to be on the winning team. I’ve always considered it a benefit that philosophy and unwinnable arguments don’t appeal to everyone.