Machine learning creates professional level photographs

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

  1. 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.
     
  2. 57B1D040-536F-4348-A540-D9E8F308456E.jpeg
     
  3. Anyway, back to our discussion.

    A1 intelligent is evolving. Most forward thinkers in the scientific community are concerned how it will develop in the future: for the good of humanity or otherwise.

    It is a singularity, we just don't know. But to think it is just a simple machine which we punch binary code into is naïve.
     
  4. Once upon a time we were a little shrew thing. Then it evolved.

    Once upon a time there was a simple machine thing that just added up numbers. Then it evolved.

    Once upon a time a being of infinite powers created humanity. He created humanity in his own image.

    Once upon a time humanity, created in the image of the infinite being, created its own life using the creativity of the infinite being which humanity was given in the likeness of the infinite.

    Forever A1 just a tin can or something else? What does the evolution of the tin can tell us? It is evolving.
     
  5. I think about it differently. My take is that humans created the idea of or imagined a being of infinite powers. This kind of myth goes way back and recurs in many forms with powerful beings appearing in many guises. Such myth has its own power and the human ability to create such myths is among the earliest signs of both philosophy and creativity. Myths both explain the world and show the wonder of imagination, not to mention symbolism. It is with that imagination and sense of wonder that humans explored the oceans, explore space, and now develop AI. With knowledge and imagination, humans are creating a technology system so complex, sophisticated, and untethered to its maker. It is suggestive of amazing possibility, some of which may demand a healthy dose of fear or at least care while much about it is revolutionary in the best of senses.
     
  6. The power of modern hardware to (enable humans to) fit mathematical functions onto enormous quantities of data (the only real progress AI has made since its inception), while useful and consequential, is hardly the computer we know "evolving" into something it fundamentally isn't or a singularity struggling to be born. Machines remain exactly as smart as they've always been and dumber than every living thing. Seriously, guys, to date and into the foreseeable future, "artificial" intelligence is leveraged human intelligence, and computer art is human beings making art using a computer. Even if you believe in a fantastic remote future for machines, it does not follow a quasi-thing like 'art' will intersect ontologically with a quasi-thing like 'intelligence' inside a literally alien being of exotic materials, and then in such a way that a squabbling ape barely evolved from its food would (if it could) recognize either in it.
     
  7. Yeah, I don’t think it is either! That phrasing sounds faux spiritual and a little sickly sweet, tbh.
    Machines have become exponentially more sophisticated than they once were. My current cell phone is a lot smarter than my first flip phone was. You might be buying the wrong brand if yours isn’t smarter than one you had a decade ago.
    Agreed. It’s the computer evolving into something it IS.
    Some living things are way overrated. There are occasions when I much prefer rocks ... or sand.
    Certainly, human beings can and do use machines to make art. But we don’t happen to be talking about that. We’re talking about AI systems being programmed to do things beyond the specific intentions of those programming them. When a human uses a machine to make art, the human forms a specific intention of the desired result and uses the machine to accomplish that result. AI art is not remotely like that. The human has no idea what the machine will come up with and is not in that kind of master-slave relationship with the machine, getting the machine to do the human’s specifically-intended bidding. The human programs the machine to compute well beyond that human’s own specific intents and computational limits.
     
  8. You know what else can exceed a human's intents and computational limits? The way watercolor flows on a piece of paper.

    Yes we do, and there is no plausible sense in which a combinatorial explosion of outputs means that we don't.
     
  9. I know. And it’s that unknown and accidental character of art that both human art and AI art have in common.

    If the way watercolor flows on a piece of paper can exceed a human’s intents and computational limits, then that’s an example, at least in part, of the art NOT owing itself fully to human control and ownership. A lot of art is not and cannot be owned in exactly the same ways, if at all. On the other hand, I’m sure plenty of great photographers, painters, and sculptors have experienced chance, accident, and even randomness in their work and still put their signature on it even while embracing those less or even non-intention-inspired elements. This tells me that “ownership” and human intention are not the sole or foundational elements on which notions of what is art and how it can be created can hang their hats.
     
  10. The argument isn’t and never was that intention is the sole element of art making. Chance has always played a role in the creative process, which is after all also what separates art from craft. But intention and the will to express, depict, or illuminate something about and of the world and ones place in it is a necessary ingredient of art. It’s rather self-evident that a work of art requires an artist on the other side of it. An A.I. Machine no matter how technologically advanced doesn't have any intention and has no sense of purpose, it doesn’t seek meaning and doesn’t feel the need to express itself or show something about the world. The fact that an A.I. machine can be programmed and made to appear through some randomization patterns as if it has intention doesn’t mean it's producing something with intent. It doesn't even have an instinct.
     
  11. No, it’s not. Plenty of people recognize art in nature and nature didn’t have an intent or will to express itself. As a matter of fact, a lot of art is created when people get their own wills out of their way.
     
  12. There are many and varied ingredients that go into art and no one, two, or three of these ingredients are necessary for art. Anyone may blissfully decide that this or that ingredient is the key to the secret sauce but that would just be arbitrary rule-making ... art has to have this or that. It often feels good to come up with definitive answers to not so definitive concepts like art but, ultimately, such restricting and forced answers are no solution at all. The answer to “What is art?” that I’ve found more satisfactory than most is in the experience of it, whether as maker or viewer. Listing necessary ingredients does away with so much of its wonder and power. What ingredients are necessary for love, for fear, for loneliness? I don’t find it a terribly beneficial or even coherent way to look at these things, certainly not when they get tethered to “necessity.”
     
  13. It has nothing to do with subjective feelings or with what anyone wants art to be, or thinks art should be. It has to do with definitions and what art is uncontroversially understood to be and what it’s assumed not to be and within which there’s an infinite amount of freedom and variation possible. You can change the definition of art all you want so that it fits your agenda; it’s not going to change the facts of it.
     
  14. ... according to one nobody ...

    What a lot of humans don’t realize is that stating that something is a fact doesn’t make it a fact. Repeating it doesn’t make it a fact. Being more adamant and petulant about it doesn’t make it a fact. As a matter of fact, the more ego and petulance behind the statement of so-called facts the more reason there often is to be at least skeptical that they are facts.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2019
  15. If you can’t agree on pretty basic widely accepted facts and understandings about the world (such as art being something human-made or man-conceived) then there’s no point in discussing anything anymore. You’re also projecting (what else is new), and it is - in fact - you who’s been acting like a petulant child by yet again insisting on an endless relativism where facts always and can only be questioned whenever it’s convenient for the one questioning to do so. Others have a better grasp of the real world while still realizing that such a grip on and of something like factual truth is not a limit to the imagination.
     
  16. Now, these are just quotes, suggestions, not proof of anything, not proofs of anything about art.

    I think facts are important in mathematics and many practical matters. I want to know for a fact the stove is not hot before I let my two-year-old go near it, assuming I’m not into letting her learn this the hard way.

    I don’t think there are fact-based definitions of art ... or love for that matter.

    A definition of art masquerading as fact is akin to an oxymoron. Even as I embrace a variety of definitions of art I am aware of them not as facts but as placeholders.

    Art is, in my opinion, at least in part the future. The future is the unknown. No one who has ever tried to tie down what is art or what ingredients supposedly constitute art hasn’t had the future pull the rug out from under them. Making any ingredient or group of ingredients a necessity for art simply means you’ll be dated in no time.
     
  17. Pointing out the obvious that art cannot not be human-made or conceived is not at all about tying down what art can be. Stop deflecting the matter and being disingenuous as if my argument is somehow based on trying to limit what art is. It’s not, because art being human-made is not limiting it in any way. On the contrary, it’s about enriching what art is and aspires to be as a token and expression of the human condition and not watering it down to a point where it's everything and anything (how post-modern) and therefore means absolutely nothing.
     
  18. I would take any opportunity to explore and learn from a collaboration with an AI creating art. I think that the more we humans step back from the front end and unleash AI from human comparison, creating fewer human imposed restrictions we are likely to need a rewrite of the dictionary definitions of creativity and Art. So less programing using human history and examples and concentrating on freeing the AI from human experience might be very illuminating.
     
  19. Here's how a computer makes art using an AI. Human finds something to say and a concept with which to say it. Human identifies a promising source of non-uniform data. Human gathers data, transforms and encodes it. Human writes an algorithm to process data. Human visually interprets result (1s and 0s). Human evaluates result for artistic merit. Human tweaks some parameters and repeats. Here's what the computer is inspired to express at every stage in this process: heat.
     
  20. Also, it's not true the human has no idea what the computer will come up with. The AI in the article that started this thread, for example, produces landscape photo thingies. There may be some surprising details (I dunno, a donut lake?) but so what, digital paint flowing over the digital page, the overall look will be modulated by the data and algorithm. Human beings are more surprising, it's just that we expect them to be.
     

Share This Page