I love these two lines: "it is a copy of art" and "what problem are they trying to solve?" Some of my kids are reading a book for school about the child laborers in the beginning of the twentieth century. When machines were built to do the work of child machine-tenders in textile mills, kids were able to live a childhood free of the worry of having their fingers ripped off in a machine at work. Is there a pressing need to get people away from having to do artistic activity? The answer is, as you are aware, obvious.
Indeed, of all the grievous toil from which machines can liberate man, the making of art is not an example. Actually, it is precisely the thing that the boffins tell us we will spend our time on when all the grievous toil has been automated.
i agree. tasking a machine with making art misses the point of both machine and art. AI can be programmed to simulate a lot of things, but at the end of the day, it doesn't feel--it'll never desire, fear, love, hate, grieve, etc. it'll never be inspired. so, any art it creates will always be an imitation, however convincing. is anyone asking for this?
No one is asking for this as a means of getting art. Some are asking for it as a means to prove that not only was Pinocchio made of wood, but we all are.
i think you're right, which is cynical and kind of sad. i admit to laughing when i heard about critics who unwittingly raved about paintings done by chimps. sometimes it's good to call bs on aspects of the art world. but it's hardly an excuse to call the whole notion of art into question.
I think it's possible that a machine could produce something that has a moving effect on human beings. I think of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by P.K. Dick (or the popular movie, Blade Runner): If machines can be made convincing enough, then humans can't tell (or very easily tell) the difference. It becomes a very interesting situation, and it appears to me that society is heading that direction, even if approaching it forever but never getting there makes it like a curved line approaching an asymptote to infinity. I don't know if it's a good or bad thing, but that seems to be where we're headed.
I like your analysis of execution and vision, and I agree that machines don't have vision, not in the way humans do. That is special for us. And I don't think that's likely to change soon.
Interesting. But, of course, the androids in Blade Runner were conscious. It was, essentially, a Pinocchio story, concerned with the question of what it means to be human (as all Pinocchio stories are).
Now, I don't know what consciousness is, any more than anyone else does, so I'm not in a position to say that machines cannot ever be conscious. I just don't see any evidence to support the idea that we are getting close to that in any way. It may turn out to be the ultimate 95% problem. Only time will tell, but I am not disposed to worry about it.
That was thoroughly well-put, thank you.
I love these two lines: "it is a copy of art" and "what problem are they trying to solve?" Some of my kids are reading a book for school about the child laborers in the beginning of the twentieth century. When machines were built to do the work of child machine-tenders in textile mills, kids were able to live a childhood free of the worry of having their fingers ripped off in a machine at work. Is there a pressing need to get people away from having to do artistic activity? The answer is, as you are aware, obvious.
Indeed, of all the grievous toil from which machines can liberate man, the making of art is not an example. Actually, it is precisely the thing that the boffins tell us we will spend our time on when all the grievous toil has been automated.
i agree. tasking a machine with making art misses the point of both machine and art. AI can be programmed to simulate a lot of things, but at the end of the day, it doesn't feel--it'll never desire, fear, love, hate, grieve, etc. it'll never be inspired. so, any art it creates will always be an imitation, however convincing. is anyone asking for this?
No one is asking for this as a means of getting art. Some are asking for it as a means to prove that not only was Pinocchio made of wood, but we all are.
i think you're right, which is cynical and kind of sad. i admit to laughing when i heard about critics who unwittingly raved about paintings done by chimps. sometimes it's good to call bs on aspects of the art world. but it's hardly an excuse to call the whole notion of art into question.
I think it's possible that a machine could produce something that has a moving effect on human beings. I think of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by P.K. Dick (or the popular movie, Blade Runner): If machines can be made convincing enough, then humans can't tell (or very easily tell) the difference. It becomes a very interesting situation, and it appears to me that society is heading that direction, even if approaching it forever but never getting there makes it like a curved line approaching an asymptote to infinity. I don't know if it's a good or bad thing, but that seems to be where we're headed.
I like your analysis of execution and vision, and I agree that machines don't have vision, not in the way humans do. That is special for us. And I don't think that's likely to change soon.
Interesting. But, of course, the androids in Blade Runner were conscious. It was, essentially, a Pinocchio story, concerned with the question of what it means to be human (as all Pinocchio stories are).
Now, I don't know what consciousness is, any more than anyone else does, so I'm not in a position to say that machines cannot ever be conscious. I just don't see any evidence to support the idea that we are getting close to that in any way. It may turn out to be the ultimate 95% problem. Only time will tell, but I am not disposed to worry about it.
Agreed. I'm not too worried about it, either.