3 ms·
But doesn't meaning of art come from the spectator, at least in part? Maybe it needs to pass the Turing test only halfway. Then humans will fill in the rest an
by js8 9y ago
But doesn't meaning of art come from the spectator, at least in part?
Maybe it needs to pass the Turing test only halfway. Then humans will fill in the rest and will think of it highly as art. For instance, take a computer which can create photo-realistic image - boring, not art. Take a computer that can, because of its imperfections, create crazily wrong, impressionist or cubist type of stuff - art!
- itronitron 9y agoIn that case, the computer is producing decoration, something that can hang on a wall, but not 'art'.
- js8 9y agoI don't think so. Decoration is something else entirely, something that evokes a sense of beauty, perhaps. A nice fractal is a "decoration". But a Picasso painting is not, because it's not "pretty". What if computer produces a Picasso painting? Or impressionist one? And it does, look up "neural network dreams". These things are not pretty. But they are satisfying, because we can look at them as puzzles and fill in the details.
- itronitron 9y agodecoration can also be a style and I feel like AI learning impressionism would just be it picking up the impressionist 'style' ... there are already image filters that people can apply to photographs for that sort of thing, but I don't think applying those filters turns their photos into art ... also I should mention that I am setting the bar very high for what qualifies as art