|
Dead Reckoning posted:TBH, most humans can't create meaningful art or coherently talk about ethical philosophy, so we're probably closer than we think. Creating a robot Mozart or Einstein might be hard, but beating the intelligence of the average human is shockingly easy. the shockingly beatable intelligence of the average human is actually beyond our most advanced computers at the moment and we're not even close to being able to simulate such intelligence. also, the AIs that are "creating" art really aren't, they are simulating "art" based on their creators' notions and preconceptions about what art is and what is worthwhile art.
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 10:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
Sethex posted:UR RIGHT every human that picks up an instrument/brush was doing so without a prior influence or cognitive sample that they were emulating from All of them came to their own conclusions about what art is and pursues it, as opposed to a neural net which can only reflect the biases of its creators.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:Actually, most artists don't know what the gently caress they are doing or why. Yes I'm aware of how neural networks work, I've created one of my own. The desirable/undesirable answer is where the creators biases are introduced and why the network ends up reflecting those who train it. As for your "artists don't know what they're doing" argument: They don't need to for cognition to be there. Not all cognition is conscious
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
Dog Jones posted:Regarding your second line, I wasn't arguing that artists are not cognizant in general. I do believe artists possess cognition (nearly all living humans do). I was saying that many have not come to any conclusions about what art is and how best to pursue their artistic endeavours. Sort of beside the point, perhaps. 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. Cingulate posted:What What part of that quote do you have a problem with?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah, but right now 99% of humans couldn't create great and meaningful art either and so that seems like a weird criteria for the measure of a man. Maybe you meant that 99% of people can't make art that appeals to a large amount of today's population? Cause people have been creating meaningful art for far longer than we have had writing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Some people have. Some people haven't. You mention writing but 26% of adults can't do that either. None of these seem like good tests of human like AI if they are things plenty of actual humans fail at. Considering neural nets have a 0% chance of creating meaningful art on their own at the moment, it's a perfectly valid test. I'd argue that nearly everyone can make art that's meaningful to at least themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If I say I could not make meaningful art would you just claim I was lying no matter what? Hmm so you never drew any pictures for your parents? quote:What if I claimed I found a drawing a neural net made to be meaningful would you claim I didn't. People can find meaning in all sorts of things that have no meaning. People used to think the howling winds outside their houses were banshees signaling someone's impending death. You can pretend there's meaning in that image if you want, but it's 100% certain that there isn't any meaning in it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Why are you able to declare the scrawlings I made for my parents meaningful without seeing them but then declare any meaning I see in deep dream's interpretation of meatballs as animals as 100% certainly wrong? Rush Limbo posted:Because you are the sum of your experiences and cognition of those experiences, either consciously or unconsciously. An AI is not. Everything you do has meaning, even if it's not readily apparent even to yourself. The same cannot be said about an AI. Humans are able to interpret meaning in what an AI does, but that doesn't mean that there is any meaning to actually be had. Was gonna respond but this was pretty much what I was gonna say.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You have a circular definition then, if everything I make is meaningful no matter what even if I say it's not and everything a computer makes is inherently not meaningful even if I say I find it meaningful then it seems your conclusion is simply because you decided it's true and all evidence counter to it is lies. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:Why should the cloud's inner monologue matter? Why should an artist's? The important thing in art is what you, the viewer, sees; nobody values great intents and you can only infer them from the result anyway. 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
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It found a meaning, it found "hey, this meatball looks kinda like a dog" then altered the picture so it looked even more like a dog. It's more than any art I've ever made. no, an unthinking computer cannot find meaning. not yet at least. if it could we'd have a lot better translation apps than we do and we'd have true natural programming languages.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I can neither translate or be programmed in a natural language (except in extremely hand wavey "school is like being programmed MAN") so am I not able to create art till I learn french or something? uh, yeah you can dude. ever followed a recipe and made some food? congrats, you were just programmed in a natural language
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
twodot posted:When I follow a recipe there's large probabilities I will gently caress it up. And not just gently caress it up like "Oh this could use some salt", but I could drink too much, pass out, and burn down the neighborhood. If we're expecting that sort of accuracy from computers, I'd say we've already got natural language programming. 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 20:09
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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: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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Define meaning i already have. go read my post history if you want that instead of jumping into an argument that's already overstayed it's welcome by quite a bit
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:And how would you be able to tell if it was lying about having done that? about what, its work having meaning? well, it would have purpose (to deceive foolish humans into thinking it created a meaningful work) and therefore meaning.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Does a screwdriver have meaning? is a screwdriver cognizant?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
blowfish posted:If meaning depends solely on the creator and has no physical effect on the product, then it is meaningless. to you maybe, not to everyone for example, people hounded mark twain about the meaning behind his works and he hated it to death Condiv fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 00:32
|
|