Areas like Music/art/ simple conversation seems wayyy easier cuz it only takes a few seconds for humans to judge if it is good/bad, if u do it automatically trough recording of brain waves the AI should get good really fast.+there are lot of examples to learn from

Just the complex human interactions that evolved from the real world seem difficult to me to get a high level AI in quickly, maybe my understanding is off tho

It only takes a few seconds for a bunch of uncultured know it alls like TS to decide they prefer a chocolate box lid to something more difficult.

If we'd had AI in the Baroque era we would never have had Beethoven. If we'd had AI in the Romantic era we'd never have had Modernism. This applies to all the arts.

The only case in which AI produces superb art is when the judge is AI (which may well be the final outcome).

Not too sure about that.


https://news.artnet.com/art-world/ru...ce-art-1019066

If that happened in 2015, imagine 2035.

Sadly for you you understand neither art, nor human nature, nor AI, or even yourself. Peter's study above beautifully skewers you.

There is nothing special about humans or human creativity. It is magical because we can produce at a richer level than we can deconstruct, but that is just a function of insufficient processing power.
This is just comical, man. Beethoven and modernism are perhaps two examples of things likely to fall first to AI. What you read as deep emotional meaning is actually formulaic building from simpler structures. AIs will crush the beauty of Beethoven by deconstructing brains and understanding what creates pleasure and emotions and wonder and feeling from sound, and simply applying billions of simulations. Music is a cinch to an AI. As will be manipulating human emotion. We're extremely hackable and slow, and our emotions are written all over our faces.

People like you, with extremely low levels of understanding of the human condition, are in for a shock as AI improves.

None of this makes me happy, but it's inevitable, sadly.

Tooth you are way to pessimistic about human interaction and the changing the dynamics of the universe. Human conscious is becoming more thoughtful and powerful. If you think AI will overtake human in emotions and feeling, I have nothing to say. The human brain is very powerful and we have not even come close to reaching our peak and never will because we can always improve. Everything is speculation right now, human are terrible of predicting the future. I just feel like people are fear mongering too much. Just let time play out and see. The reason why people are thinking like this is because society lacks positive emotions, a lot of selfish people in this world but as times go on and people start to have more empathy, things will change.

In short people will have a higher level of consciousness and emotions that AI will not overtake. That's just my thought.

AI is already writing news stories, earnings reports, sports summaries, original music, and yes novels.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-t...iterary-prize/

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/4...-in-the-woods/

And still you continue to fail to understand what art is, assuming like a philistine that it's only about inducing emotion. You're the cheesy guy who has a poster of the Mona Lisa on his wall because he likes the way her hands are painted.

Art by definition is created by humans, and is about humans. It has to express something about the relationship between humans and the outside world. As Anthony Burgess said, a novel about a dog cannot be considered art, no matter how well written and emotionally affecting it may be.

Art is constantly evolving. To think that it is "by definition created by humans" is a philistine view. Art doesn't end when you or Anthony Burgess says it does.

I hate the Mona Lisa. But wanting the Mona Lisa because you like the way her hands are painted is a perfectly valid view, as valid as the deepest thoughts of an art critic. It's only creepy people like yourself who think art should be a particular way and that people are less insightful when they don't see art like you do. Personally I'm a huge fan of impressionists.
You're so ****ing weird and narrow minded.
No it doesn't.

WTF? So an impressionist or post-impressionist landscape isn't art? Art is about sharing a perspective, a particular view of the world, a way of thinking and feeling and seeing and experiencing put into a creative form. You can do that writing about rocks if you have the talent. Even taking your dopey narrow "art is about humans" view, you can explore the humanity of the author or the painter through how they see,say, a dog, or a field of wheat.

According the art redneck, jalfrezi, this isn't art:



Yet this is:



You really need to expand your mind a little. You're in a weird place.

Jack London called. He said Anthony Burgess can suck it.

Also didn't we settle the question of whether automated art is art with Warhol?

I highly recommend this book about rabbits:

This is just semantics. Some definitions require art to be man made, others don't. For all intents and purposes though these hypothetical programs that create art are just systematized algorithms of human thought.

Computers can make something that satisfies a set of defined parameters, but a big part of what makes art significant to us is that it offers something new. The bar is going to be a lot higher and the pace of progress a lot faster in the future for that reason - because you won't need nearly the same technical expertise to execute on a vision, but the stuff that rises to the top at any given point is going to be the stuff that introduces something new to the formula.

No you clown.

Landscapes clearly meet the criteria because humans occupy them and experience them directly - if you can't see that they're about the relationship between humans and the outside world I don't know what to say about your lopsided brain that hasn't already been said.

The cricketer portrait is also art, but bad art.

You should educate yourself a bit more in these matters before you make even more of a fool of yourself.

I wrote the "created by human" clause as I was rushing to leave for work this morning. It's an oversimplification that's true to date but it doesn't actually define art.

If a machine were somehow to be able to understand what it is to be human and to articulate aspects of human relationships with each other and with the external world through pictures, words or music etc, then it would be an artist.

Nothing posted itt so far argues that this is, or will any time soon, be possible, or even posits how it could be achieved when art exists to fill in the gaps that science is incapable of filling.

Yep. There's certainly no way there will ever be a higher life form than this that could produce something better than the Mona Lisa

jfc

It's no more a book about rabbits than Animal Farm is a book about livestock.

Humans don't interact with dogs? You just claimed that a book about dogs can't be art. But a book about trees can?

Most of this thread is laughing at you and your ridiculous views. It's bad enough that you have weird ideas, but you can't even defend them logically and consistently.
The rolled gold tosser who thinks he knows more about art than others.

How would you know whether it's doing that or not, purely by looking at the art? Did you even read Black Peter's study above? Here it is again:

People read human intention into things where it simply doesn't exist.

The algorithm that created the art was designed with specific intent.

A book that describes the everyday experiences of dogs without reference to humans isn't art. That was Burgess's point, and he was right. If you want to make the book about the dog's owner too then of course that's another matter. I think you know this anyway and are just arguing because your Asperger's brain hasn't yet developed the capability to agree with an opposing view on a subject that you're woefully ignorant about.

You're hopelessly out of your depth and should join some classes or start knocking about with artists as I've done all my adult life. It would open your mind in ways you're incapable of imagining.

The worst thing for me is that you actually remind me so much of myself as a 14 year old maths and music geek.

Grow up.

Seeing something through human eyes described in a creative way is of course art, whether it be dogs or rocks or fields. You know you're wrong here and even walked it back above in a cowardly way:
My mother was an artist until she became disabled.

You're the classic loser with low intelligence who's gotten older, who learns a subject, sees his former hilarious ignorance, and assumes others who disagree with his newfound "wisdom" were as ignorant as he was. You're definitely autism spectrum, without the high intelligence to offset it.
You have so little imagination or understanding of the human condition that you see reminders of yourself in people that are totally different to you.
Multiple people are mocking you in this thread and it's going right over your head. You've lost this and you understand people so little that you don't even realize it.

You've created an artificial definition of art, that few people would agree with, that you can't even defend intellectually on the lowest level, in order to create a definitional protection from what robots could produce being called "art', even if it's superior to what humans produce in every conceivable way. It's silly low end sophistry that no one here is buying.

You've clearly spent little time thinking about consciousness, the human condition, what we are and the philosophical bounds of what we can truly say about others and their intentions, and how that ties into things like AI. You have a child's view of the brain and an ignoramus's view of AI and a narrow contrived view of art.

So it's open-minded to limit art to a certain walled garden, but it's close-minded to accept other forms of art? Got it.

What would happen if I asked a future super duper computer to come up with "the smallest number that takes more than fourteen English words to uniquely describe it."