Machine learning creates professional level photographs

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

  1. If art wants to have emotional resonance, it needs to have emotional resonance. There are many ways that can come about. Rock formations can have great emotional resonance and I don’t believe rocks or whatever events produced those rocks have experienced the state of mind that are produced when I view them.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2019
  2. Again, this is begging the question. We’re discussing whether machines can produce art. You can’t simply declare art as something integrally human when that’s the very thing we’re disagreeing about. You’d have to give actual reasons why a machine can’t produce art comparable to what a human can produce WITHOUT resorting to repeating over and over again that art is a human endeavor.

    Now, of course, there are many ways to beg this question, for instance, by insisting without reason that art has to be made by a conscious being or has to be produced by an emotional being. But those would simply be not so sly ways of saying art must be produced by a human. As consciousness and emotions become more understood and have more and more physical explanations and we understand them more and more as physical systems, it makes so much sense that a machine will reproduce at least enough aspects of both emotion and consciousness to produce art that will not only mimic human art but that will likely eventually far surpass it in range.

    For some reason, this is a threat to some. I see it as a great opportunity and something filled with possibility.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2019
  3. For some reason, the self-evident truth and non-controversial fact that art pertains to the human condition as an expression and document of what makes us human seems to be a threat to you somehow.

    And I never said that machines couldn’t produce art. All of this has already been repeated a few hundred or so posts back. Machines are just tools that may or may not be used to create art. But you can't have art without the human mind conceiving it. Computers don't have conscious thoughts, in case you haven't noticed, lol.

    There's another common misconception that any progress in A.I. means progress in the understanding of what consciousness is.
     
  4. lol

    Reason by self-evidence precludes discussion. Thanks for that. Finis.
     
  5. You got it backward again. The contention of self-evidence precludes reason, and there's no use for discussion without reason.
     
  6. The world does not care about our feelings or any of our petty concerns and hang-ups. The world will present itself to us as it is, unflinching. It’s the responsibility of the artist to revolt and create without wallowing in self-pity.
     
  7. Soulless computers don't produce art. They can't think and they don't know right from wrong. Software engineers who write the programs produce the art, fake the thinking and hopefully restrict their danger. Like the Wizard of Oz, when you pull back the AI curtain, all you see is some guy pulling a bunch of levers.
     
  8. The difference between a computer algorithm and a human mind creating art is that the latter cares (has to care) about what it produced while the former doesn’t have to care at all about what it produces. Relevance realization and salience is what separates the wheat from the chaff and what separates artificial intelligence from general intelligence.

     
  9. Sssst! Soon everyone will be suspect for uttering such statements of universal morality. In the ever more relativistic fake cop-out coward world we live in today there are no such things as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ anymore, and everyone and everything is supposedly free from such choice, hallelujah!

    I’m going back to the abstract...
     
  10. Knowing right from wrong is what makes us human. Without it, then we're just computers.
     
    Phil S likes this.
  11. "We’ll be in trouble when AI develops feelings." David.

    "We will all be in trouble when our species develop feelings" Allen.

    Hey Ho we are not too troubled by them we just ignore them.

    " ascribing human characteristics to A.I. beyond it merely being a tool to yield, like paintbrushes and cameras are tools." Phil.

    Once a open a time we were little shrew type creatures if we believe in the evolutionary Darwin theories.

    Describing human characteristics to a little shrew is beyond it merely being a tool to yield, like paintbrushes and cameras are tools." Phil.

    Tick top goes the clock.

     
  12. Alan, Phil.

    Technology has moved on from your commodore 64;)
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2019

  13. Uhm, I had the Amiga 1000 and still have it but this misses the point ‘bout a million miles since it’s not and never will be a technological question but a spiritual one.

     


  14. " Like the Wizard of Oz, when you pull back the AI curtain, all you see is some guy pulling a bunch of levers" Alan

    Way back in time a computer called Deep Blue was able to challenge and beat the current world champion. Those guys pulling the levers must have been master chess players or is the reality...

    "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts" Aristotle. Think synergy.

    Blade runner, West world and Mr Data in Star Trek have the common theme of A1 intelligence trying to emulate or become superior to humanity-they are endlessly searching for a soul which humanity claims makes them very special. I would suspect that A1 intelligent when it reaches a certain level of awareness will be very happy with their own soul without the desire to emulate humanity. Lets be honest we are not the err best role models.

    I think they will be able to create their own Art without the need to slavishly copy humanity.

    Phil, it is all about technology. We are a product of biological technology shaped and perfected over time to enable us to survive in our environment.
     
  15. xxxx.jpg Different but still friends and partners.
     
  16. It doesn’t matter if all that we ultimately are is the biological equivalent of a mechanical A.I. machine, a bunch of wires and levers. What matters is that we don’t act like we are only that. The human artistic output and culture is not the mere consequence of information processing but borne from a desire to find a meaningful purpose behind the processing of information and which is just as much an environmental evolutionary mechanism.
     
  17. And why would you think A1 intelligence would be any different other than not being a biological entity. I think you are endlessly saying we are unique and special and always be a superior life form to anything which will ever exist. Religion?

    “We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo… have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the canter of the world, and that it does not move from east to west"

    Anyway, think I will have a play with my commodore 64;)
     
  18. Nope. That's not what I've been saying. It's what you are projecting about what I've been saying.

    Don't get me started on all the popular myths surrounding Galileo's trial. Yawn. But the vehement questioning of theories which at one point weren’t considered to be plain scientific truths as they are today isn’t at all reserved to religious inquiry; it’s the whole modus operandi of science itself (there’s also a link between Christianity, and the development of scientific research, many priests were also practicing scientists). Copernicus’ hypothesis of the Earth and planets revolving around the sun wasn’t at all an accepted theory within the scientific community of that day, so it’s perfectly understandable why a religious institution would question it too, since heliocentrism wasn’t accepted either within the scientific community, even not in Galileo's day. In many ways, the Church was only following the accepted science of the day.

    The same goes for the flat Earth myth which is historically inaccurate even though we were all thought about it in our school history books. (I’m referring to the historically erroneous theory that says that in the Middle Ages the majority of people and religious/scientific scholars believed in a flat Earth. Not true. The majority whether religious or scientific held the model - going back to the Greeks - of the Earth being spherical).
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2019
  19. Commodore Amiga’s where still used by NASA up until the 2000s. Proven reliable technology.
     

Share This Page