|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Okay so if I ask siri to make an appointment at 4 she's human then? Can you ask siri to go to expedia, get a flight that matches your schedule, and reserve the tickets. no not really, so it's not true natural language processing.
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
Condiv posted:Can you ask siri to go to expedia, get a flight that matches your schedule, and reserve the tickets. no not really, so it's not true natural language processing. I can't ask my grandma to do that either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it's not about accuracy. being able to process instructions that are conveyed like normal human language is the point of true natural language programming
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I can't ask my grandma to do that either. i can ask mine to do that though. same for my dad, little brothers, cousins, friends, etc. twodot posted:How the gently caress do you plan on measuring on whether instructions that are conveyed like normal human language were processed other than accuracy? If I give you a computer that takes your input, gives it to Cortana, and then either does what Cortana says or burns your house down, how do you know the computer didn't process your natural language instructions and just got drunk instead of doing what you asked for? certain failures would exist due to ambiguity in natural language and lack of context (we can't make a computer that knows everything). for example if i asked my computer for a hot dog and it delivered  it would be an innaccurate result if i meant i wanted it to heat up a random dog. i can tell the language was processed because it gave a result that could be interpreted as correct, even though it did not meet my expectations completely
Condiv fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Condiv posted:The point is that although there is derivation in art, there is a lot more to it that involves the artists desires, life experiences, and personality which highly specialized neural nets cannot reproduce. Right now neural nets are only really good at creating derivative work based on the biases of its trainers. I think its irrelevant anyway because art objects are independent of their creator, and the circumstances of their creation. You don't need a neural network or anything to create art objects, you could just use a random number generator. If a computer produces an art object, we must judge the merit of the art object on its own terms, not in light of the fact that it was produced by a computer. Recently a computer produced a new painting in the style of Rembrandt. I don't know poo poo about Rembrandt or painting in general for that matter, so I have no idea if its a 'good' painting or not, but the point is you can criticize it as a painting in the same way that you would criticize Rembrandt's actual paintings. It doesn't matter that a machine made it. Art objects are not people, and art objects are independent of their creators.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Condiv posted:the choices of the artist matter. i wouldn't read a novella written by a markov-chain because it would be unintelligible and meaningless. i would read slaughterhouse five though Would Slaughterhouse-Five stop being good if you found out it had been generated by a computer script, though? The whole discursion about authorial intent and 'meaning' is pointless; computer-generated art is bland on its own merits not because computers lack qualia deep within their circuits but because computer art all boils down to just repeating minor semirandom variations on the same simple task a bazillion times, based on the parameters humans feed them. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:The whole discursion about authorial intent and 'meaning' is pointless; computer-generated art is bland on its own merits not because computers lack qualia deep within their circuits but because they don't innovate, they'll just repeat minor variations on the same basic task endlessly based on the parameters humans feed them. I think its interesting that randomly generating art could possibly produce innovations that we can understand, whereas more sophisticated techniques would be limited in the ways you describe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
A million monkeys banging on a million typewriters for a million years might eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare, but it's gonna take a lot more man-hours to find the Shakespeare in all the gibberish than it did for Shakespeare to just write it. There's no reason machines have to take the million-monkeys approach, but that's where they're at right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:Would Slaughterhouse-Five stop being good if you found out it had been generated by a computer script, though? no, but my argument has never been that computers can't generate good or entertaining things. they just can't generate anything with meaning without a human behind them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:A million monkeys banging on a million typewriters for a million years might eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare, but it's gonna take a lot more man-hours to find the Shakespeare in all the gibberish than it did for Shakespeare to just write it. You're right that it is not an efficient method of generating quality art objects, but also I think optimality is irrelevant here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Pretty loving far.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no, but my argument has never been that computers can't generate good or entertaining things. they just can't generate anything with meaning without a human behind them. Would Slaughterhouse-Five suddenly stop being meaningful if you found out it had been generated by a computer? You will never meet Kurt Vonnegut. You do not know him, reading his work did not telepathically soulbond you to him; Kurt Vonnegut the conscious human may as well not exist to you. He's better at writing than any currently extant machine, but it was not his touch that made Slaughterhouse-Five a good book: it was good words in a good order that created meaning in your mind. Dog Jones posted:You're right that it is not an efficient method of generating quality art objects, but also I think optimality is irrelevant here. How so? If you're not concerned with reducing the conscious human labor involved, why even bother with computers? You can poke around on the ground until you find a pretty rock. It isn't the million monkeys that are the artists in that scenario; it's the editors. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no, but my argument has never been that computers can't generate good or entertaining things. they just can't generate anything with meaning without a human behind them. If a computer generated the text of Albert Camus' "The Stranger", why is that less "meaningful" than Camus writing the text himself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:If a computer generated the text of Albert Camus' "The Stranger", why is that less "meaningful" than Camus writing the text himself. it would have no meaning behind it because meaning requires cognition. i may find meaning in it, but as i pointed out earlier, there's a difference from finding meaning in something and something having meaning. A Wizard of Goatse posted:Would Slaughterhouse-Five suddenly stop being meaningful if you found out it had been generated by a computer? no, not unless that computer could reason. otherwise its generation of slaughterhouse-five would be so astronomically unlikely as to be a miracle on its own so i'd consider it a wonder, not art.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:How so? If you're not concerned with reducing the conscious human labor involved, why even bother with computers? You can poke around on the ground until you find a pretty rock. The "random art generating computer" was just a thought experiment to illustrate that computers are capable of producing unique, innovative art. I am not saying this is a worthwhile endeavor in practice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it would have no meaning behind it because meaning requires cognition. i may find meaning in it, but as i pointed out earlier, there's a difference from finding meaning in something and something having meaning. So "meaning" is a metaphysical substance that floats around and sticks onto objects created under the correct ritual? But can not be detected by looking at the object created?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it would have no meaning behind it because meaning requires cognition. i may find meaning in it, but as i pointed out earlier, there's a difference from finding meaning in something and something having meaning. I think the only way to reconcile our disagreement at this point would be to begin discussing what you mean by 'meaning', the nature of art, art objects, and beauty. But we should not derail this thread and turn it into a discussion about aesthetics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If I say I could not make meaningful art would you just claim I was lying no matter what? What if I claimed I found a drawing a neural net made to be meaningful would you claim I didn't. The unique ability of humans is to interpret such objects as art / aesthetic. A lustrous mollusk shell can have the same aesthetic power as a human piece of art, but nobody would say mollusks were producing art intelligently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:The "random art generating computer" was just a thought experiment to illustrate that computers are capable of producing unique, innovative art. I am not saying this is a worthwhile endeavor in practice. Yeah but what makes you say it's the computer producing the art, rather than whoever fishes the unique, innovative-looking stuff from the millions upon millions of copies of basically the same lovely thing? Without that guy, you're never going to get art anyone wants to look at; the random generator is not capable of producing good art on its own it is simply the medium that guy works in. You could hypothetically have a standalone art machine that produced interesting work, and there's no reason it would need a genuine sense of self to do so, but it'd have to be a very different sort of thing than modern computer programs are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
No-humans can produce artistically valuable artifacts, but humans are the only intellectual force capable of analyzing them and integrating them into an ordered system of values and ideas in a way that surpasses a superficial descriptive sorting, which is the fundamental nature of aesthetics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:So "meaning" is a metaphysical substance that floats around and sticks onto objects created under the correct ritual? it is an abstract concept yes. it's also a defined term so i'm not sure why you're having so much trouble with it Dog Jones posted:I think the only way to reconcile our disagreement at this point would be to begin discussing what you mean by 'meaning', the nature of art, art objects, and beauty. But we should not derail this thread and turn it into a discussion about aesthetics. it's quite simple meaning: the end, purpose, or significance of something. a computer without strong AI cannot have intention or a purpose of its own, it can only express our intent. a work created by a randomized process has no meaning because the process behind it has no purpose of its own i think you guys are thinking i'm making some quality argument that a work created by a neural net could never be considered as good as a human or that neural networks can't outclass humans in some areas. that's not the case. however, neural networks are currently outclassed wrt intelligence by all humans (and a poo poo ton of animals)
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:Yeah but what makes you say it's the computer producing the art, rather than whoever fishes the unique, innovative-looking stuff from the millions upon millions of copies of basically the same lovely thing? Without that guy, you're never going to get art anyone wants to look at; the random generator is not capable of producing good art on its own it is simply the medium that guy works in. You could hypothetically have a standalone art machine that produced interesting work, and there's no reason it would need a genuine sense of self to do so, but it'd have to be a very different sort of thing than modern computer programs are. Ah I see what you're saying. That's interesting. Art as a search problem. So if we imagine that art works are not generated or created, but rather discovered, the task of the searcher in our thought experiment is identical to the task of the artist. I'll have to think about that!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it is an abstract concept yes. it's also a defined term so i'm not sure why you're having so much trouble with it Because you seem to think it is an abstract concept that is also an innate physical property of objects bestowed by the touch of a sapient being, rather than an interpretation of the senses generated inside your own mind. Dog Jones posted:Ah I see what you're saying. That's interesting. Art as a search problem. So if we imagine that art works are not generated or created, but rather discovered, the task of the searcher in our thought experiment is identical to the task of the artist. I'll have to think about that! Pretty much. There's whole genres of found-object art that take otherwise non-artistic artifacts and recontextualize them into an artwork. Until a machine can consistently produce worthwhile artworks on its own without a human riding herd on it, I don't know why we'd consider Deep Dream to be the 'artist' any more than we would the tree that grew the piece of driftwood that Joe Cornell stuck in one of his boxes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:nobody would say mollusks were producing art intelligently. If I said that right now would you explode or would you just say "nah" and decide your made up criteria are still right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:Because you seem to think it is an abstract concept that is also an innate physical property of objects bestowed by the touch of a sapient being, rather than an interpretation of the senses generated inside your own mind. uh no? i've made no mention of physical properties at all
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Condiv posted:uh no? i've made no mention of physical properties at all So it's a nonphysical property? That can't be detected by anything in any conceivable way? Ever even in a hypothetical? Just by examining the object? Using any means possible? Are you sure it's even real?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:So it's a nonphysical property? That can't be detected by anything in any conceivable way? Ever even in a hypothetical? Just by examining the object? Using any means possible? are you being intentionally obtuse? do you not understand abstract concepts at all? Owlofcreamcheese posted:If I said that right now would you explode or would you just say "nah" and decide your made up criteria are still right? ah, that answers that
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Condiv posted:are you being intentionally obtuse? do you not understand abstract concepts at all? I understand you might have a whole constellation of religious beliefs but they don't really matter to anything at all if they are only stuff that exist in your heart and literally effect nothing ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I understand you might have a whole constellation of religious beliefs but they don't really matter to anything at all if they are only stuff that exist in your heart and literally effect nothing ever. yeah... maybe you should go back and actually read my posts instead of just imagining things
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Getting huffy about how self-evident your argument is and how everyone who disagrees with it is just dumb doesn't make it any less of a mess, guy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:Getting huffy about how self-evident your argument is and how everyone who disagrees with it is just dumb doesn't make it any less of a mess, guy. i'm getting huffy because it's annoying to argue against people who are misrepresenting your argument. why again did you say i was pretending that meaning was some physical property?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
because you said thisCondiv posted:you do understand the difference between something having meaning and finding meaning in something right? the first requires cognition on the part of the creator, the second requires cognition on the part of the observer. a computer is incapable of cognition and therefore incapable of creating meaningful art on its own (it can be used to create meaningful art though). likewise, a computer is not able to find meaning in the dog spaghetti picture you like. objects innately 'have meaning' or not independent of the meaning any observer might find in them, based on the state of mind of their creator. Whatever alternate intent you imagined for yourself when writing that post, the meaning of those words in that order that any English-speaking human is going to derive is "meaning is an innate physical property of objects imbued by their creator", and because qualia at the time of creation is actually not what defines meaning you actually do have to choose the proper words to express what you want if you wish to be understood. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If I said that right now would you explode or would you just say "nah" and decide your made up criteria are still right? I would say your statement is invalid unless you can make an argument for it. Naturally anybody can technically say anything they want, what matters and what is semantically implied in my post is that sch a statement can't be made on well-founded grounds. Unless you are willing to subscribe to a metaphysical view of the world where the very laws of nature are by design aligned with human nature, and are a mirror reflection of it, you can't argue in favor of your proposition in good faith. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:because you said this nothing about that post implies that at the least. yes, works have meaning independently of their observers, BUT only when the creator is cognizant. that doesn't mean that that meaning is imbued into the work in some obvious way (though some artists are not subtle), and in a number of cases you'd have to ask the creator themselves what the meaning is. art produced by a computer as of now is meaningless because a computer has no aims, purpose, etc outside of the one designed for it. do you understand now? Condiv fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:A million monkeys banging on a million typewriters for a million years might eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare, but it's gonna take a lot more man-hours to find the Shakespeare in all the gibberish than it did for Shakespeare to just write it. Oh, but it's so easy. For example: two and two are five. Hey, I just controlled you into thinking something akin to "that's wrong". It's pretty hard to get an AI to be controlled by words like that! RedFlag posted:Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the 2016 Presidential election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i'm getting huffy because it's annoying to argue against people who are misrepresenting your argument. why again did you say i was pretending that meaning was some physical property? If it's not a physical property and can't be checked for in any way but asking you personally to assign or not assign it to things why should anyone care about it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If it's not a physical property and can't be checked for in any way but asking you personally to assign or not assign it to things why should anyone care about it? it can be checked. if the work has a creator, and the creator is cognizant, there's meaning behind it. there's the test. what is that meaning? you'd have to ask the creator. if you don't care, you don't have to care.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it can be checked. if the work has a creator, and the creator is cognizant, there's meaning behind it. there's the test. what is that meaning? you'd have to ask the creator. if you don't care, you don't have to care. Okay but what use is there in saying humans can attach magical "meaning" to objects but nothing else could? What use is that property if it has zero effect on an object that has it and you can't even determine if it exists from the object?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Okay but what use is there in saying humans can attach magical "meaning" to objects but nothing else could? What use is that property if it has zero effect on an object that has it and you can't even determine if it exists from the object? a strong AI could attach meaning to works too. and you're the one who originally said that 99% of humans could not create meaningful art, so i'm not sure why i need to explain the importance of said property to you since you thought it was important earlier.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
ShredsYouSay posted:Can't this question best be answered by that great scholarly monograph "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality"?  well played
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:04
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!