Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by movingfinger, Jul 15, 2017.
not the right machine, the right intelligence.
You and a few others are the only ones thinking of machines matching or outdoing humans in the field of art. That's where you've gone so awry. Think of them as providing a DIFFERNET kind of art.
Why be so competitive as to think machines are trying to match and outdo humans? And why be so defensive as to think that because some of us are willing to accept the possibility for machines to make art, that entails sweeping human art accomplishments under the rug?
If that's what you're saying, fine. I still find it missing the point.
I'm saying, since you seem to keep missing it because you're so concerned about my emotions, that machine art may wind up being interesting for just those non-human qualities it may possess. Something new to art, not the same human-centric idea of it.
The machine acting LESS humanlike is what may make it's art interesting, challenging, etc.
post an example of a non human centric idea of art?
Once again we've arrived at everything is really it's opposite. In other words, the end is always to simply stop making sense.
"A non-human centric idea of art is Fountain . . ."
Then be sure immediately to contradict that by saying
"Art will always be human-centric."
Is that the standard? An entity has to add something that hasn't been done already? Can you answer what a human will add in the future that hasn't been done already? I can't. That's why I probably won't be the next Picasso or Beethoven, but I suspect someone or something will add something that hasn't been done already.
It's not the first AI euphoria, and it won't be the last, but DL so far has only incrementally improved already existing computer applications, including complex acts of "creation" of images, sound, and text. If you weren't alarmed or elated at the prospect of computer art 25 years ago, then you shouldn't be alarmed or elated for its prospects today. DL is mostly old algorithms for statistical analysis, modern processing power combined with large data sets, and hype. Lots and lots of hype.
One way machine art could be different than human made art is by showing indifference to human emotions, biases and morality, so that when we see it, our reaction would be: what in the freaking world is that! Just like some people felt seeing Duchamp's fountain. It's possible, our biases or morality are actually acting as barriers from seeing expanded possibilities, just as they enable us with a special vision of the world.
However, IMO there is a difference between art, and objects with art potential. Machines can make pictures with art potential, but humans have a key role to play to imbue those pictures with their consciousness, to make sense of them. Making sense is tied to consciousness, which at this point distinguishes machines from humans. It's possible, in future machines may acquire consciousness, but then they will be more human like, and as Phil said, this discussion will be obsolete, if not moot.
Fred I said in my post that if we see art from computer generated program, than the program that created the art is art as it came from programmers, humans. So computer art in that sense is human art. It;'s not different if I applied one of those presets to make a pencil looking photo from a regular photograph using Photoshop presets. The guy who programed that preset is the artist. But as we have seen, few people even use presets anymore like that a month after buying PS. But whatever preset a programmer comes up with will be his limited view of art.
So yes, I state unequivocally that art needs human feeling, heart and soul. Whether he's taking the photo shot himself or writing a program that becomes the final product. His heart and feelings go into it.
What you're describing is why many people since the camera was invented have thought photography isn't really art. It may be a craft, but not art.
"Now, machine art is leading a probably otherwise rational guy to visions of dog poop being moved around the sidewalk."
I'm not that creative. The point was to ridicule the idea that you can go from disembodied bytes to robots that think and act, i.e., artists. I think first of all we're going to have to solve the more basic problem of machines that can seek out the basic materials and energy they need to sustain themselves. Because if you can't even do that, then you're just a tool for things that can.
I think part of the problem is that people don't really understand what a computer is. They think it's some form of high intellect that somehow we guide for results. As someone who worked for Univac repairing third generation computers 50 years ago that operated with discrete components back than, let me tell you they are nothing but idiots. High speed morons that can only add 0's and 1's. That's it. The only difference today is that they're smaller and quicker. But still adding 0's and 1's.
Everything they do has to be programmed in error free code by humans. As we all have seen, one little error in code and they bomb out. So any artistic bent comes from a human programmer and his limited human ability to conceive art. It's no different than a camera sitting on the shelf. Until a human picks it up, moves it around and aims it, and starts snapping the shutter, no art it made. Nothing will happen. The computer is no different.
I'm not. I'm just considering that machines will be capable of making art. Any underestimation of humans is your defensiveness of humans, thinking they somehow are underestimated if someone suggests a machine can also make art. You're the one making humans into over-sensitive, insecure beings who feel underestimated because a machine might someday accomplish what they've been accomplishing for centuries.
Man, not animals, make moral judgments of right and wrong. How does this relate to art?
As an aside, why does man need to do and see art? How does that relate to computer generated art?
Leo, Alan, and Phil,
You don't seem to quarrel with someone saying that machines make belt buckles, even though we all know a human programmed them to make buckles. You don't seem to quarrel with saying a machine calculates even though we all know a machine has been programmed to calculate. You're giving art a mythologized and romanticized status by reading those of us who say machines can make art as trying to make human beings out of them or giving them thinking capacities that are the same as humans. You've simply arbitrarily selected the combination of art and machines to have to be spoken about differently from the way we would commonly speak about belt buckles, buttons, and calculations and machines.
The kinds of calculations and the speeds at which machines can do them, even though it began with a human programmer, is far different from the capacity a human has to calculate himself.
The kind of art and the way in which they may make it, even though it began with a human programmer, may very well be far different from the capacity a human has to make art or the kind of art eventually made.
Makes sense. After all a camera is a machine as is an artist's paint brush or a potter's wheel. All require the spark of humanity to give it a soul. The art comes from man, not the machine. And that's all a computer is. A machine.
I love computers. I love ML -- linear algebra and statistics, my God, how can anyone not love that? My objections to AI, if you can call them that (I believe in AI!), are really objections to the way some AI evangelists, historically, at least since Turing, have drawn a sharp distinction between the physical and intellectual. To make an artificial artist you first have to make an artificial life, is what I'm saying (because I love biology too. I love everything. I'm all about love.)
Now that would sure do this site a world of good - at least there would be critiques again on photos. Better than the silence we enjoy today
"The kind of art and the way in which they may make it, even though it began with a human programmer, may very well be far different from the capacity a human has to make art or the kind of art eventually made."
Computers have been making art since the 80s. Novels, music, paintings, name it. It's just that they need human input and direction and lack plasticity. They need human input and direction because they are bereft of curiosity and intention and because an adequate sensory capacity is really, really hard, possibly AI-complete. They're rigid because they can't program themselves, or anyway not well. They may never be able to program themselves well. Not for metaphysical reasons but because of the astronomical lower bound on the resources that may be needed (assuming a Turing model of computation.)
The lack of intention is really killer IMO. There is a strong sense in which the programmer is the artist here and the computer is serving the equally mindless function of film, except it's a digital system instead of an analogue one. I'm always more impressed with the engineers in these stories than the computer generated art. I mean lots of devices can potentially generate art. Any moving gadget if you tape a loaded brush to it.
Did AlphaGo want to beat Lee Sepold or, more recently, Ke Jie. Did it want to learn?
Separate names with a comma.