4 ms·
It doesn't stop being art; it never was art. It was a picture that fooled the observing into thinking it wss art. Take a chat bot that can pass the Turing Test
by jnordwick 9y ago
It doesn't stop being art; it never was art. It was a picture that fooled the observing into thinking it wss art.
Take a chat bot that can pass the Turing Test. It seems human to the observer, but that doesn't mean it is. And when the observer learns of their mistaken belief, the chat bot doesnt just then become a bot.
- js8 9y agoI could give you the same reply I gave OP. If you determine what is art based on the process of its creation, and not solely on the result, then you deny AI the capability to create art. I personally don't need to know anything about the circumstances of the creation of art piece to think of it as art (or sometimes not). If the author relies on this (for his work to be judged as art), he should have put it into the work itself.
- EGreg 9y agoAren't we just quibbling over definitions? "If you determine what is art based on the process of its creation, and not solely on the result, then you deny AI the capability to create art." OK and?
- jnordwick 9y ago> then you deny AI the capability to create art. Yes. That's what is whole thing is about - AI cannot create art because it lacks a human component. A tighter question would be can animals create art? I don't know the answer to that one.
- js8 9y ago> Yes. That's what is whole thing is about - AI cannot create art because it lacks a human component. What I mean by "deny the capability to create art" is that you decided that whatever the AI might have created in the future, and without even looking at it, it's not art. It's sort of an extreme position, I think.