I think the whole problem with this intellectual exercise is that no one has yet defined AI. Are we talking about something that can manage a large amount of data or something that is inherently human but run by circuitboards instead of neurons?
I don't think it will be possible to create an AI that is exactly human, as circuits will likely never be able to fully capture the complexity of the entire human body (whether I've eaten recently changes how my brain works, for example), but I don't see any reason to assume a self-aware, sentient entity capable of some emotion is impossible.
Yes, yes it is. Cooking is considered an art. But you can still have a machine do it.
Do I have to clarify again? I said making art is not like making cookies. Making cookies obviously can be an art, but the street does not go both ways. Making art is not like making cookies. And you diminishing the value of art does not make it more possible that a machine can make art of any value.
Yes, yes it is. Cooking is considered an art. But you can still have a machine do it.
Do I have to clarify again? I said making art is not like making cookies. Making cookies obviously can be an art, but the street does not go both ways. Making art is not like making cookies. And you diminishing the value of art does not make it more possible that a machine can make art of any value.
What makes you so sure a machine cannot create art? The fact that a machine hasn't created art isn't a valid reason to assume a more advanced machine couldn't produce art.
I think the whole problem with this intellectual exercise is that no one has yet defined AI. Are we talking about something that can manage a large amount of data or something that is inherently human but run by circuitboards instead of neurons?
I don't think it will be possible to create an AI that is exactly human, as circuits will likely never be able to fully capture the complexity of the entire human body (whether I've eaten recently changes how my brain works, for example), but I don't see any reason to assume a self-aware, sentient entity capable of some emotion is impossible.
beauty is that they don't have to.
An AI just has to accurately simulate popper brain function which is a lot easier then reproducing a human at the sub atomic level.
Beauty in that is you can make the AI far more intelligent(with instant access to any available data) and versatile then a human brain and just as creative\artistic etc.
Yes, yes it is. Cooking is considered an art. But you can still have a machine do it.
Do I have to clarify again? I said making art is not like making cookies. Making cookies obviously can be an art, but the street does not go both ways. Making art is not like making cookies. And you diminishing the value of art does not make it more possible that a machine can make art of any value.
What makes you so sure a machine cannot create art? The fact that a machine hasn't created art isn't a valid reason to assume a more advanced machine couldn't produce art.
Because art is inherently human. A machine can assist in art-production certainly, but without human input, its impossible for a machine to independently generate a work of any value.
What differentiates a work of art produced by a human from one created by a machine? Suppose two "artists", a human and an advanced AI, used the same materials and produced images that evoked the same emotions in the audience. Why would one be art and the other not?
What differentiates a work of art produced by a human from one created by a machine? Suppose two "artists", a human and an advanced AI, used the same materials and produced images that evoked the same emotions in the audience. Why would one be art and the other not?
The emotional input of one that is absent in the other. You have to give something up to make something beautiful. Machines can't, and won't.
Yes, yes it is. Cooking is considered an art. But you can still have a machine do it.
Do I have to clarify again? I said making art is not like making cookies. Making cookies obviously can be an art, but the street does not go both ways. Making art is not like making cookies. And you diminishing the value of art does not make it more possible that a machine can make art of any value.
What makes you so sure a machine cannot create art? The fact that a machine hasn't created art isn't a valid reason to assume a more advanced machine couldn't produce art.
Because art is inherently human. A machine can assist in art-production certainly, but without human input, its impossible for a machine to independently generate a work of any value.
this is a somewhat theological argument.
Problem with it is that it assumes that you can define what it is to be human(and evolution would show that there is no such thing as an absolute human being without arbitrary designations), and assumes that someone with equal intelligence and mental abilities is incapable of producing art that would aesthetically please a human.
The emotional input of one that is absent in the other. You have to give something up to make something beautiful. Machines can't, and won't.
So who is giving something up to make nature beautiful?
--
Dude, you don't know what a fucking strawman is.
Here is the thing, your argument is all sentiment and no fact. Your definition of art is -incredibly narrow- and doesn't cover the real-world usage of it but rather the academic wankery about "true" art.
Incenjucar on
0
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
edited January 2009
I didn't realize we'd have to try and break down the meaning.
In order to get motivated to destroy mankind, a machine intelligence would need:
Self-awareness
A sensory environment (preferably the one we use)
The ability to learn how to do things
Plenty of computer simulated intelligences now can learn about things or how to change their behavior in some way, but any actual action has to have been programed in almost every circumstance. You can't teach a hammer to lift nails, but you could magnetize it. Once you've got a computer program designed for one thing which, though it's own experience, becomes capable of another, that's a problem.
Because art is inherently human. A machine can assist in art-production certainly, but without human input, its impossible for a machine to independently generate a work of any value.
art.noun.
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.2.the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection. 3.a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art. 4.the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture
source: dictionary.com
Nowhere does that definition indicate that something must be manmade to be art.
What differentiates a work of art produced by a human from one created by a machine? Suppose two "artists", a human and an advanced AI, used the same materials and produced images that evoked the same emotions in the audience. Why would one be art and the other not?
The emotional input of one that is absent in the other. You have to give something up to make something beautiful. Machines can't, and won't.
We're not talking about some chess program. We're talking about a hypothetical AI that is as emotionally, intellectually, and imaginatively capable as a human. Explain to me why a digital mind is inferior to an organic one, without resorting to "because one is human."
Because art is inherently human. A machine can assist in art-production certainly, but without human input, its impossible for a machine to independently generate a work of any value.
art.noun.
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.2.the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection. 3.a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art. 4.the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture
source: dictionary.com
Nowhere does that definition indicate that something must be manmade to be art.
Certainly everything could be perceived as art, but I think at some level for any sort of argument to be made, you need to draw a line in the sand.
What differentiates a work of art produced by a human from one created by a machine? Suppose two "artists", a human and an advanced AI, used the same materials and produced images that evoked the same emotions in the audience. Why would one be art and the other not?
The emotional input of one that is absent in the other. You have to give something up to make something beautiful. Machines can't, and won't.
We're not talking about some chess program. We're talking about a hypothetical AI that is as emotionally, intellectually, and imaginatively capable as a human. Explain to me why a digital mind is inferior to an organic one, without resorting to "because one is human."
I think I've already said (if not I'll say it for the first time) that such a thing is impossible. You can't teach a machine to be human. The proposal that humans could manufacture something remotely close to that which is the human brain in complexity and ability is ridiculous.
I think the whole problem with this intellectual exercise is that no one has yet defined AI. Are we talking about something that can manage a large amount of data or something that is inherently human but run by circuitboards instead of neurons?
I don't think it will be possible to create an AI that is exactly human, as circuits will likely never be able to fully capture the complexity of the entire human body (whether I've eaten recently changes how my brain works, for example), but I don't see any reason to assume a self-aware, sentient entity capable of some emotion is impossible.
beauty is that they don't have to.
An AI just has to accurately simulate popper brain function which is a lot easier then reproducing a human at the sub atomic level.
Beauty in that is you can make the AI far more intelligent(with instant access to any available data) and versatile then a human brain and just as creative\artistic etc.
It's true, but no AI will be human, and I doubt will even be close unless that is an intended design parameter. I think AI will produce art, and I think it will be very alien to our mindset. Which, incidentally enough, I think is excellent. Guernica might reveal a lot about the human condition, but I am at least as interested in a window to a to an inhuman mindset.
Yes, yes it is. Cooking is considered an art. But you can still have a machine do it.
Do I have to clarify again? I said making art is not like making cookies. Making cookies obviously can be an art, but the street does not go both ways. Making art is not like making cookies. And you diminishing the value of art does not make it more possible that a machine can make art of any value.
What makes you so sure a machine cannot create art? The fact that a machine hasn't created art isn't a valid reason to assume a more advanced machine couldn't produce art.
Because art is inherently human. A machine can assist in art-production certainly, but without human input, its impossible for a machine to independently generate a work of any value.
I think you're decades too early for such a powerful and broad pronouncement.
What differentiates a work of art produced by a human from one created by a machine? Suppose two "artists", a human and an advanced AI, used the same materials and produced images that evoked the same emotions in the audience. Why would one be art and the other not?
The emotional input of one that is absent in the other. You have to give something up to make something beautiful. Machines can't, and won't.
We're not talking about some chess program. We're talking about a hypothetical AI that is as emotionally, intellectually, and imaginatively capable as a human. Explain to me why a digital mind is inferior to an organic one, without resorting to "because one is human."
I think I've already said (if not I'll say it for the first time) that such a thing is impossible. You can't teach a machine to be human. The proposal that humans could manufacture something remotely close to that which is the human brain in complexity and ability is ridiculous.
Why? Given enough time/resources, why couldn't humans successfully model their own brains? You can't make something ridiculous by just saying so.
What differentiates a work of art produced by a human from one created by a machine? Suppose two "artists", a human and an advanced AI, used the same materials and produced images that evoked the same emotions in the audience. Why would one be art and the other not?
The emotional input of one that is absent in the other. You have to give something up to make something beautiful. Machines can't, and won't.
We're not talking about some chess program. We're talking about a hypothetical AI that is as emotionally, intellectually, and imaginatively capable as a human. Explain to me why a digital mind is inferior to an organic one, without resorting to "because one is human."
I think I've already said (if not I'll say it for the first time) that such a thing is impossible. You can't teach a machine to be human. The proposal that humans could manufacture something remotely close to that which is the human brain in complexity and ability is ridiculous.
Why? Given enough time/resources, why couldn't humans successfully model their own brains? You can't make something ridiculous by just saying so.
Maybe we could on certain levels, as far as logical thought processes. We've already done that, its just expanding upon that. But I disagree with the whole "machines will have emotions and be able to create art". I don't think we will ever understand that part of ourselves. And even if we did, we wouldn't be able to instill it in a machine.
What differentiates a work of art produced by a human from one created by a machine? Suppose two "artists", a human and an advanced AI, used the same materials and produced images that evoked the same emotions in the audience. Why would one be art and the other not?
The emotional input of one that is absent in the other. You have to give something up to make something beautiful. Machines can't, and won't.
We're not talking about some chess program. We're talking about a hypothetical AI that is as emotionally, intellectually, and imaginatively capable as a human. Explain to me why a digital mind is inferior to an organic one, without resorting to "because one is human."
I think I've already said (if not I'll say it for the first time) that such a thing is impossible. You can't teach a machine to be human. The proposal that humans could manufacture something remotely close to that which is the human brain in complexity and ability is ridiculous.
Why? Given enough time/resources, why couldn't humans successfully model their own brains? You can't make something ridiculous by just saying so.
Maybe we could on certain levels, as far as logical thought processes. We've already done that, its just expanding upon that. But I disagree with the whole "machines will have emotions and be able to create art". I don't think we will ever understand that part of ourselves. And even if we did, we wouldn't be able to instill it in a machine.
We'll never understand emotions? Really? Why is that? If it exists inside the human brain, we will eventually understand it.
I don't think we will ever understand that part of ourselves. And even if we did, we wouldn't be able to instill it in a machine.
Why not? We can fly to the moon, we're working on creating life from scratch, we can slow light, we can transplant faces and, to a limited degree, ENTIRE HEADS.
You can understand emotion but you can't replicate it. Without emotion there is no ambition, meaning that no AI will ever be "smart" enough to try and take over the world and kill humanity.
Oski on
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
You can understand emotion but you can't replicate it. Without emotion there is no ambition, meaning that no AI will ever be "smart" enough to try and take over the world and kill humanity.
You can understand emotion but you can't replicate it. Without emotion there is no ambition, meaning that no AI will ever be "smart" enough to try and take over the world and kill humanity.
You can understand emotion but you can't replicate it. Without emotion there is no ambition, meaning that no AI will ever be "smart" enough to try and take over the world and kill humanity.
You're just making things up.
So now your just going to dismiss my arguments. Thats cool.
I'm not disagreeing with that AI will one day be incredibly advanced. I'm sure it will be able to do all we can do and more- except for feel. I honestly don't think we will be able to replicate the depths of human emotion at any recognizable level. And that will prevent future AI from being the AI of our dreams.
Posts
Yes, yes it is. Cooking is considered an art. But you can still have a machine do it.
I don't think it will be possible to create an AI that is exactly human, as circuits will likely never be able to fully capture the complexity of the entire human body (whether I've eaten recently changes how my brain works, for example), but I don't see any reason to assume a self-aware, sentient entity capable of some emotion is impossible.
Do I have to clarify again? I said making art is not like making cookies. Making cookies obviously can be an art, but the street does not go both ways. Making art is not like making cookies. And you diminishing the value of art does not make it more possible that a machine can make art of any value.
What makes you so sure a machine cannot create art? The fact that a machine hasn't created art isn't a valid reason to assume a more advanced machine couldn't produce art.
beauty is that they don't have to.
An AI just has to accurately simulate popper brain function which is a lot easier then reproducing a human at the sub atomic level.
Beauty in that is you can make the AI far more intelligent(with instant access to any available data) and versatile then a human brain and just as creative\artistic etc.
Because art is inherently human. A machine can assist in art-production certainly, but without human input, its impossible for a machine to independently generate a work of any value.
Why? Why can't aliens or elephants or incredibly-intelligent androids make art?
AI is by definition produced originally by another sapient entity, so this doesn't even make sense.
The emotional input of one that is absent in the other. You have to give something up to make something beautiful. Machines can't, and won't.
this is a somewhat theological argument.
Problem with it is that it assumes that you can define what it is to be human(and evolution would show that there is no such thing as an absolute human being without arbitrary designations), and assumes that someone with equal intelligence and mental abilities is incapable of producing art that would aesthetically please a human.
Yes it does. Think about it, and then post again, this time without strawmanning the shit out of what I say.
So who is giving something up to make nature beautiful?
--
Dude, you don't know what a fucking strawman is.
Here is the thing, your argument is all sentiment and no fact. Your definition of art is -incredibly narrow- and doesn't cover the real-world usage of it but rather the academic wankery about "true" art.
In order to get motivated to destroy mankind, a machine intelligence would need:
Self-awareness
A sensory environment (preferably the one we use)
The ability to learn how to do things
Plenty of computer simulated intelligences now can learn about things or how to change their behavior in some way, but any actual action has to have been programed in almost every circumstance. You can't teach a hammer to lift nails, but you could magnetize it. Once you've got a computer program designed for one thing which, though it's own experience, becomes capable of another, that's a problem.
art. noun.
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. 2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection. 3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art. 4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture
source: dictionary.com
Nowhere does that definition indicate that something must be manmade to be art.
Please. Read. Enjoy. Then we can talk about why nature is not art, and is therefore not relevant to what we're talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
We're not talking about some chess program. We're talking about a hypothetical AI that is as emotionally, intellectually, and imaginatively capable as a human. Explain to me why a digital mind is inferior to an organic one, without resorting to "because one is human."
Certainly everything could be perceived as art, but I think at some level for any sort of argument to be made, you need to draw a line in the sand.
I think I've already said (if not I'll say it for the first time) that such a thing is impossible. You can't teach a machine to be human. The proposal that humans could manufacture something remotely close to that which is the human brain in complexity and ability is ridiculous.
I object to not having what I'm saying directly addressed.
It's true, but no AI will be human, and I doubt will even be close unless that is an intended design parameter. I think AI will produce art, and I think it will be very alien to our mindset. Which, incidentally enough, I think is excellent. Guernica might reveal a lot about the human condition, but I am at least as interested in a window to a to an inhuman mindset.
I think you're decades too early for such a powerful and broad pronouncement.
Why? Given enough time/resources, why couldn't humans successfully model their own brains? You can't make something ridiculous by just saying so.
Your arbitrary definition of art and unsupported claims as to the possibilities of AI?
For someone so enamored with the unique creative powers of the human brain, this post shows an astonishing lack of imagination.
Maybe we could on certain levels, as far as logical thought processes. We've already done that, its just expanding upon that. But I disagree with the whole "machines will have emotions and be able to create art". I don't think we will ever understand that part of ourselves. And even if we did, we wouldn't be able to instill it in a machine.
All definitions of art are arbitrary. Mine just has a few more parameters than most.
And I don't doubt the abilities of AI in certain contexts. But I doubt it will have emotion, which is necessary for truly advanced thought.
We'll never understand emotions? Really? Why is that? If it exists inside the human brain, we will eventually understand it.
Why not? We can fly to the moon, we're working on creating life from scratch, we can slow light, we can transplant faces and, to a limited degree, ENTIRE HEADS.
Where are you getting this limitation from?
This is an incredibly controversial statement. Many people consider emotion to be what disrupts advanced thought.
You're just making things up.
And others think its what fuels it.
I'd love to see your evidence.
Oh wait, there isn't any.
See: Religious thread. :P
Few since the Stoics.
So now your just going to dismiss my arguments. Thats cool.
I'm not disagreeing with that AI will one day be incredibly advanced. I'm sure it will be able to do all we can do and more- except for feel. I honestly don't think we will be able to replicate the depths of human emotion at any recognizable level. And that will prevent future AI from being the AI of our dreams.