Machine learning creates professional level photographs

[Supriyo]

My religion is reason and logic.

 

If you have religion, then you have faith. Then all your reason and morality are relative to that faith. Its all relativism!

[Supriyo]

Well, the big deal is that, the art produced by such machines may be qualitatively different than what human artists produce. May be, we will experience colors, forms, compositions etc in a way that we never did before. Its a speculation, but thats the idea.

[Supriyo]

I'd say that this is what art has always been about, a potential.

 

Yes of course. Thats why Fred was excited about it I think.

[Julie H]

...............

 

what art has always been about, a potential.

 

"In order for this future, which is nobody's and which a human being cannot assume, to become an element of time, it must also enter into relationship with the present. What is the tie between two instants that have between them the whole interval, the whole abyss, that separates the present and death, this margin at once both insignificant and infinite, where there is always room enough for hope?" —

Emmanuel Levinas

 

What is time to a machine? What's the future to a machine?

 

..................

[Allen Herbert]

It seems to me that using man's lowest points as a species as the benchmark to any possible non man-made art and non human consciousness is flawed reasoning and misses the point that what art is and has been and will continue to be is exactly the negotiation between the good and the bad of mankind, between man's lowest depths and man's highest aspirations and as such Art (as a combined human effort) is an authentic expression (or scream into the void of space if you will) of the human condition. Phil.

 

I agee. But our lowest points are pretty low. Maybe we will be looked upon by other conscious lifeforms as reaching for the divine with our Art.

 

Art is not a sermon on the mount. Fred.

 

Sarcasm and debasing someones believes with standing....are not words also Art.

 

"I realized some time ago that cliches and platitudes are generally what Allen's got. I hadn't seen his comment because I stopped reading his comments a long time ago".

 

Hugs for Fred...of course he always has a little peep at my comments and then flagilates himself. True.

 

And the word was Fred and Fred was the word. Those who touched the hem of his cloth, and knealt before him, were imbued with the goodness and wisdom of the Fred. Truly they were blessed and would forever walk in the blessed fields of wisdom and enlightment. For those were not worthy of the word of the Fred (paticulaty the Devil Allen) they would be cast down into the Abyss of fire for etenity forever lost from the word of the Fred.

 

From the book of the Fred translated into English by Nellen Trebreh Chapter 1V lines 65 to 98.

[Allen Herbert]

"What is time to a machine? What's the future to a machine?"Julie.

 

We are all machines flesh or metal...its the conscious bit that counts.

 

Creativity is our potential to my mind...we can call it Art the undefinable.

[Norma Desmond]

In which case the excitement was about art, not about machines creating art.

Both.

What is time to a machine?

Artificial time.

What's the future to a machine?

Art.

[Supriyo]

Can an A.I. be creative?

 

Creativity is in looking for art where one would not expect to find any. Creativity is in unleashing the AI machine on canvas and thinking differently about the results it would generate. Creativity is in questioning the very notion of art itself.

 

The combination of extreme diligence with which the AI machine explores the material space, and its clinical indifference to human bias and emotions may well generate results that a human would not have conceived. It may produce results that a human will find creative. I do agree with Fred on this. It's simply a possibility, since no one have had the opportunity to test any of the hypothesis. But .... considering possibilities, sometimes even counterintuitively leads to creativity.

 

The machine's role is in producing the art. Man's role is in finding the essence.

Edited August 5, 2017 by Supriyo

[Supriyo]

Phil, you threw the question, can AI be creative. I tried to answer your question by suggesting what creativity can mean in the context of AI art.

 

It's true, AI is designed to recognize things based on training data, but it is not taught bias, or emotions. It may compose or select subject matters differently than humans. Also, machines that are designed to emulate certain styles (as you pointed out) can behave unpredictably, when placed in unfamiliar scenarios. These aspects can potentially produce results that may very well be perceived as creativity.

 

what is the broader question of art that you were referring to? Is it that art has to be always connected to human morality?

[Supriyo]

I don't think AI art would seek to negate connections with human conditions or emotions, it would be neutral to them. Neutrality is different than negation, right?

 

The role of humans in AI art would be mostly curation, and on a metaphysical level, reflecting and making connections. If that's the human aspect, that's true, as it is with any other art. But AI art doesn't seem as much an expression as it would be, if it was a lower level tool in human hand.

[Supriyo]

But AI's neutrality is different than that of the camera's in the sense that, camera doesn't analyze scene content and compose or pull the shutter by itself. The AI machine does all that without showing any selective bias based on human feelings. That neutrality is a consequence of it being a machine, not intentionally programmed into it. Hence the neutrality is not a motive by itself, although it may appear so to a human observer. You can call it a tool in the sense that it was built by a human, although you probably realize that once built, it's pretty much autonomous contrary to common tools where there is a cause effect relationship of human inputs being translated into machine actions.

 

Another thought, AI algorithms are not perfect. Most algorithms behave strangely or unpredictedly under certain conditions. It is this eccentricity that can result in bizarre, or in some cases interesting results.

[Allen Herbert]

"Art and Religion seem cosmologically intertwined in terms of their symbology. For a psychological reading on the Bible, Jordan Peterson's lectures on The Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories are a great resource. Any comprehensive view of art wouldn't be one that views art as being unconnected to all of this". Phil.

 

They are entwined to a degree as religion was our only understanding ; but they are not Siamese twins locked together. The basis of modern day mathematics the zero is enshrined in Hindu religion. Humanity is evolving both spiritually and intellectually, and question what was before. Science constantly challenges understandings that are put before before us as does Art.

 

LINK

 

‘You are everywhere!’ Human consciousness exists BEFORE birth, quantum theory says | Science | News | Express.co.uk

 

The conscious mind, or self awareness are not necessary given to humanity, as a special .... unique superiority of the one species only blessed by God.

 

"God of Worlds" I have read in one of the books.

 

A1 intelligence/intellect is today just a simple tool, tomorrow perhaps a conscious self aware entity....many creative minds working at the cutting edge of science/technology think this will be only a matter of time.

 

Phil, I will read your links.

[Allen Herbert]

[ATTACH=full]1202502[/ATTACH]

[Allen Herbert]

[Julie H]

The point is that randomness or cold neutrality by itself doesn't add up to much in art unless you can see all kinds of connections and meanings through it and which depend on an ongoing dialogue.

 

 

... and/or, we each get to decide. Throughout this thread, it's been humans claiming that machine products are or are not art. For machine products to be art, some human must decide that they are or are not art, at which point, they're not machine art, they're our art (our decision, our metric, our needs, our values). We decided. The machines didn't.

 

Of course, if they did decide, we'd have to argue about whether they really decided. Some of us would decide that they couldn't decide and others would decide that they could, but at that point the decision would be ours and therefore we would have decided, not the machines. Of course the machines could then (seem to?) decide that they had decided ...

[Julie H]

Have you ever watched a video of people trying to make one of Sol Lewitt's pieces? They follow his written instructions and they get it 'wrong" more than once. But they correct themselves and hew to his given direction. Whose art is it? Who 'made' it?

[Julie H]

an architect gets his name on the building and not the thousands of workers and machines that made it.

 

 

... and you can see a qualitative difference between these workers and machines, and a musician interpreting a piece by a great composer or an actor performing Hamlet?

[Norma Desmond]

and/or, we each get to decide. Throughout this thread, it's been humans claiming that machine products are or are not art. For machine products to be art, some human must decide that they are or are not art, at which point, they're not machine art, they're our art (our decision, our metric, our needs, our values). We decided. The machines didn't.

So ancient potters who didn't think of themselves as artists weren't artists because they didn't decide? They're only artists because future generations see their work as art? And so we're not allowed, according to Julie's TERMS OF USE of the term "art" and "artist", to call it their art, it can only be ours. How ever-lovin' self-centered!

[Julie H]

The musician performs the composition.

 

 

Yes. The musician and the actor bring their "self" to the production, as does every artist into his work.

 

It's not the machine art, but the machine "self" that is created by the programmer. Whatever that is surprising or seemingly original that gets made by the machine is made by that programmed "self."

[Norma Desmond]

The machine is analogous to the instrument the composition was written for and that the musician plays with.

Bad analogy.

 

Artificial Intelligence itself is something qualitatively different from what, for example, a chainsaw is capable of. The reason chainsaws don't make art (except as a tool used by humans) and AI systems might be able to is Artificial Intelligence has a kind of autonomy that chainsaws don't. Autonomy is not as simple as an on-off switch. Like most things, autonomy comes in degree. Just how autonomous humans are can and has been questioned as well. (Are we free from the chains of cause and effect that determine our actions, from genetics, biology, cultural forces?)

 

Don't be surprised if you wake up one morning and the violin is playing you! Don't just regurgitate Kafka. Learn from him.

[Norma Desmond]

I wouldn't say it's autonomy that is the ruling or key ingredient of art

I wouldn't say that either. I don't talk in terms of "the ruling or key ingredient of art." You do. All I did was use autonomy to show the difference between a chainsaw and a different kind of machine, one utilizing AI. And you immediately saw that as a ruling ingredient of art. Because that's what you do and how you think. Ruling ingredients! Consider that carefully for a moment and you might just find it's the basis for your essentialist, unyielding, human-centric and myopic resistance here.

[Norma Desmond]

So you must attribute a quality to autonomy that plays an important role in the making of art, no?

No. As a matter of fact, I've stated over and over again in many threads how I think art is often something shared.

You said the reason chainsaws don't make art (except as a tool used by humans) is because they don't have the autonomy that an A.I. one day might have.

Yes, the emphasis being on the MAKING. I was taking about something we can look for in determining who or what is responsibility for making something, whether it's art or anything else. Please don't twist that into my claiming a ruling ingredient of art. I was talking about the degree of autonomy a chainsaw has from the human who created it compared to the degree of autonomy an AI machine has from the human who programmed it in determining not some ingredient of art but to help determine something about the attribution of who are what makes things.

[Norma Desmond]

Maybe it's you who keep picking out words and terms and interpreting them in an essentialist literal way instead of taking them in the context of what was said and of what was responded to. Consider that for a moment.

LOL. I think you may want to attempt to practice what you preach. Read yourself picking out the word "responsibility" and missing the point:

That a tool is autonomous should not be misinterpreted or misrepresented with it having a responsibility (which would be attributing human features to it), regardless if the tool can be said to have been "responsible" in a sense for the executing of the task it was given to execute.

I'm simply using a construct of plainspoken English. You are reading human features into the word "responsibility" rather than paying attention to the context in which I used it. I'm saying the AI machine makes something with more autonomy than a chainsaw does or a cello does. And, so, I think it's perfectly OK to think of an AI machine as making where I don't think of a chainsaw as making.

 

Don't interpret the term "responsibility" in such an essentially humanist way.

 

Human free will and the accompanying responsibility don't have the swagger they once did, now that there are good determinist arguments being made by well respected neuroscientists and philosophers. It may just be that the line between man as a strictly free being and a machine as an objectified thing tethered to man's dominion and his chains of cause and effect is becoming blurred. It's not a question of machines being anthropomorphized or humans being dehumanized. I'm suggesting the possibility that the traditional and too distinct dichotomies are becoming an incorrect grammar.

Edited August 6, 2017 by Norma Desmond

[Norma Desmond]

How else to interpret it then?

The way I meant it. That an AI machine can be responsible for a work of art without that being an essentially human quality. Bacteria are responsible for some diseases. Cigarettes are responsible for a lot of cancer deaths. Genes are responsible for eye color.

If you think it's perfectly OK to think of an A.I. machine as making (as opposed to a chainsaw that's being used to make a sculpture) do you think it's also perfectly OK to think of an A.I. machine as destroying (as opposed to a chainsaw that's being used as a weapon)? If man is not the one responsible for the art that an A.I. makes then man can also not be held responsible for the destruction an A.I. (like a militarized A.I.) can bring and that's a dangerous proposition.

I wouldn't assume symmetry in these kinds of matters.

 

(We have a moral obligation not to murder people. We don't have the same sort of moral obligation to stop all murder. We can try and we can hope that all murder is stopped, but we don't have an obligation to personally go out and prevent every murder that takes place. Yet we have a distinct moral obligation not to commit one ourselves. We have a moral obligation not to drown someone but we don't have the same moral obligation to save someone who's drowning. These questions are complex and debatable, of course, but most ethicists recognize a degree of asymmetry when it comes to fostering good and preventing bad.)

 

In any case, to answer specifically your question about AI and its potential dangers, while it's perfectly OK to think of an AI machine as making art, it's also perfectly OK, assuming we can pull the plug, to stop it. We may not like the art, we may get tired of its doing such things, whatever. Our having the power to stop something doesn't mean we have power over everything it does, from start to finish. So, for example, if the machine starts making erotic art and children are present, we can choose to stop it. That we can choose to stop it doesn't mean everything it's doing is controlled by us. We might one day see an AI machine run amok and start destroying people or things we don't want it to. There can certainly be horrific unintended consequences. In that case, we should stop it. That we stop it doesn't mean we have complete control over every aspect of its capabilities.

Edited August 6, 2017 by Norma Desmond

[Norma Desmond]

The fact remains that art is an essentially human endeavor

That's the assumption you've made since the beginning of the thread. I get that this is what you, erroneously, believe.

 

Humans appreciate and understand rocks. That doesn't make rocks an essentially human endeavor and it doesn't mean humans made rocks.

If that's what you meant, A.I. art being a mere product of cause and effect then why put so much emphasis on the making?

Because cause and effect is how making occurs.

which doesn't stop with the production and finished product of art and extends well into the viewing and dialogue of art

I never doubted that. I'm talking about machines making art, which doesn't preclude a lot of important stuff happening after that, which does involve humans.

It's impossible to remove the human aspect when talking about who or what is responsible for a work of art.

Sure it's possible. It's done when the machine is responsible for it.

I was addressing the human role and the moral consequences that arise when we remove it from what an A.I. produces (good or bad). That there's an ON/OFF switch is besides the issue.

LOL. That's only because you're lost in theory. And even your theory is off, as I've already explained. There are no moral consequences because we can turn it off if it runs amok. I can say the machine is responsible for running amok and attempting to destroy the world, just as it's responsible for the art it produces. What are the moral consequences of that? If you're foolish enough to believe that because I'm not responsible for it running amok, I don't have a responsibility to stop it, I can't help you. If I learn what caused it to run amok, I'm responsible in the future to program the machine differently. I'm responsible for what I can control and not responsible for what I can't. The programmer is responsible for decisions he makes, not for every result of those decisions. I'm responsible for getting into my car today. But I'm not responsible for an accident that happens that's beyond my control, just because I got in the car. There are aspects of AI which I won't be able to control. Now, that in itself can lead to some interesting moral questions, but it doesn't have a thing to do with whether the machine is making what it's making.