3 ms·
I think "humans also do X" is fallacious. Humans also draw paintings like The Black Square by Malevich (and he wasn't the first to do it) and there's a poem con
by smsm42 8y ago
I think "humans also do X" is fallacious. Humans also draw paintings like The Black Square by Malevich (and he wasn't the first to do it) and there's a poem consisting a single letter "i" by John Curry and another consisting of one word "lighght". Does this mean a printer capable of printing random letters is a poet and one that can produce a black page is an artist?
It's true it is hard to define what art is. But I'm pretty sure /dev/random isn't an artist, even if a human artist can produce random things.
- gwern 8y ago> Does this mean a printer capable of printing random letters is a poet and one that can produce a black page is an artist? You're asking that rhetorically, assuming people will just agree there's a difference because a human artist did it and a computer doing it isn't an artist, but you know a lot of people would be happy to take one of those forks.
- smsm42 8y agoWell, I guess for these people general AI already exists, or at least AI capable of producing art. Just take a random pattern, imbue it with whatever meaning you please, and treat it as artistic intelligence. With this approach, any innovation (at least as far as producing art goes) does not carry any value beyond novelty value - if /dev/random has everything one ever would need in art, then what's the difference between any new sophisticated model and just another dump of output of /dev/random?