3 ms·
No. I think if we teach machines to be creative, then they’ll be beneficent toward us, rather than just keeping us around as household pets. I don't think grea
by joe_the_user 6y ago
No. I think if we teach machines to be creative, then they’ll be beneficent toward us, rather than just keeping us around as household pets.
I don't think great art is simply about "being creative", I'd say the art that is valued the most involves a nexus of personal creativity, mastery of various formalisms and a relation of the whole of culture and society. A particular work of art is significant not simply for being beautiful but for being part of a dialogue within the whole of society.
And this situation today makes art problematic even without computers. Once society's "dialog with itself" was confined to the "best" magazines, high class publishers, renowned galleries and so-forth.
For good or ill, attention is spread much widely and in a more arbitrary fashion. The formal gatekeepers are gone. There are still barriers to fame but they seem even more arbitrary.
Will computers somehow produce works which become integrate with the zeitgeist, so to speak? I don't know but it seems like if computers are doing this, this cultural realm will have been colonized by these electronic devices and human will indeed being kept as pets.
- stcredzero 6y agoSo, why wouldn't a superoptimizer AI write a weaponized joke that would suffocate someone by keeping them laughing for so long, or to craft themselves an android body with a form and movements that would make it the most beloved celebrity in all of human history? On top of that, why shouldn't it create music, literature, and art having that sort of effect, all at the same time, in the guise of several dozens of super-ultra celebrities and politicians? Why wouldn't a superoptimizing AI be able to become Galadriel who took the ring from Frodo? (Possible answer: The lethal joke and the face that lunched a thousand ships are apocryphal and fictional, but the politicians and the celebrities part is likely doable.)
- joe_the_user 6y agoI have no idea how this comment relates to my above post, which is 70% about culture, 30% about computers and about 0% on whatever the potentials or dangers of AI are.
- stcredzero 6y agoIt's an extrapolation, of, what if AI start making art, music, literature, etc... Take that to a far conclusion. Do you understand the 3 references?
- brudgers 6y agoOnce society's "dialog with itself" was confined to the "best" magazines, high class publishers, renowned galleries and so-forth. Or a narrative consistent with Soviet socialism and similar. Ideologies always adopt art as a tool and seek to enforce a narrow definition to suit their aims. Here a century later computer art is just a take on Duchamp's ready-mades...and more than half a century since it was a novel idea. As Heinlein said, every generation thinks it invented sex.