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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Agreed. I'm not too worried about it, either.