2 ms·

> an artistic object is a concretion of a structure of meanings This is a very narrow definition that discounts a lot of art. I'm also very dubious that prope

by mkl 5y ago

> an artistic object is a concretion of a structure of meanings This is a very narrow definition that discounts a lot of art. I'm also very dubious that proper intelligence [1] is required to build that (GPT3's output could certainly be accurately described that way). [1] I agree that there is no intelligence at work in these algorithms.

mdp2021 5y ago
> discounts a lot of art ...Examples? > could certainly be accurately described that way Like everything, provided we take an indicative definition for an instruction manual where terms can be used loosely outside original intention.
- mkl 5y ago
  https://duckduckgo.com/?q=abstract+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=abstract+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=imag... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=generative+art&atb=v279-1__&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=generative+art&atb=v279-1__&iar=im... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=spirograph+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=spirograph+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=im... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=kaleidoscope+art&atb=v279-1__&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=kaleidoscope+art&atb=v279-1__&iar=... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=macro+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=macro+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=images&... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fractal+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fractal+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=image... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=polyhedron+art&atb=v279-1__&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=polyhedron+art&atb=v279-1__&iar=im... Any significant sentence GPT-3 spits out will have more meaning, structure of meanings, and concretion of structure of meanings than most of the images on those pages. Those images all show up when searching for "art", even though your narrow definition discounts most of them as such, which means your definition is faulty. I don't think you can claim all those thousands/millions of people are wrong about what constitutes "art". I also don't think you can sensibly proclaim a faulty definition of something as general (and text-inclusive) as "an artistic object" to be "the important point" and then get annoyed when someone points out problems with it. Maybe you're thinking of replying claiming all the images I linked above have meaning in them, but that could only be the case if you used a definition of "meaning" so broad as to be meaningless (e.g. "a person selecting it provides meaning", which to me translates to "it elicits emotion" since that's why it was chosen, and you already argued against that). Yes, an art critic might claim to find meaning in totally abstract artwork, but they'd find more meaning in most artistic images generated with machine learning, especially if you don't tell them the source.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    (Sorry for the delay.) > Any significant sentence GPT-3 spits out will have more meaning, structure of meanings, and concretion of structure of meanings In the naturally intelligent reader or in the machine? > narrow definition /Ostensive/ definition. "Narrowing" because it is a (piece of a) definition. (It excludes shallowness.) > your definition is faulty If the reading (interpretation) is. > I don't think you can claim all those thousands/millions of people are wrong Well... > when someone points out problems with it Apart from that "something in the air" of historic duration and consequences, but curiously unusually present here in the latest few days, of heightened communicational struggles, yesterday I thought of other recent exchanges here showing that approach: «Is this place still attended to by people who build things, or is this the turn of consultants who think their job is to shake their heads and present an invoice?». Also with reference with those - present in this club - that use e.g. logic or science to "close paths" instead of furthering them. > Maybe you're thinking of replying claiming all the images I linked above have meaning in them No. I am still thinking of replying that either the creator intended to represent a found structure of proper meanings - concepts refined in a path towards maturity - or the product is phony. If I could kindly ask you to take a brief look to my reply to krapp yesterday: surely a critic may find meaning in a random composition - a critic-in-act would because "we" do, we recognize those structures of meaning we were "internally" developing into all that could represent them (aaand look, that's the Arts - normally, when we reproduce that intentionally) - but then, the art is in the subject, not in the object. So: before you can have an "artist" AI, you have to have a "philosopher" AI. (Sophistication matters little; "modules" do.) Otherwise, you may have a "mockerer" AI, a "trickster", a "deceiver", if there is no substance, no depth under the surface.

by mkl 5y ago

mdp2021 5y ago

> discounts a lot of art ...Examples? > could certainly be accurately described that way Like everything, provided we take an indicative definition for an instruction manual where terms can be used loosely outside original intention.

mkl 5y ago
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=abstract+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=abstract+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=imag... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=generative+art&atb=v279-1__&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=generative+art&atb=v279-1__&iar=im... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=spirograph+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=spirograph+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=im... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=kaleidoscope+art&atb=v279-1__&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=kaleidoscope+art&atb=v279-1__&iar=... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=macro+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=macro+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=images&... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fractal+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fractal+art&atb=v279-1__&iax=image... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=polyhedron+art&atb=v279-1__&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=polyhedron+art&atb=v279-1__&iar=im... Any significant sentence GPT-3 spits out will have more meaning, structure of meanings, and concretion of structure of meanings than most of the images on those pages. Those images all show up when searching for "art", even though your narrow definition discounts most of them as such, which means your definition is faulty. I don't think you can claim all those thousands/millions of people are wrong about what constitutes "art". I also don't think you can sensibly proclaim a faulty definition of something as general (and text-inclusive) as "an artistic object" to be "the important point" and then get annoyed when someone points out problems with it. Maybe you're thinking of replying claiming all the images I linked above have meaning in them, but that could only be the case if you used a definition of "meaning" so broad as to be meaningless (e.g. "a person selecting it provides meaning", which to me translates to "it elicits emotion" since that's why it was chosen, and you already argued against that). Yes, an art critic might claim to find meaning in totally abstract artwork, but they'd find more meaning in most artistic images generated with machine learning, especially if you don't tell them the source.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  (Sorry for the delay.) > Any significant sentence GPT-3 spits out will have more meaning, structure of meanings, and concretion of structure of meanings In the naturally intelligent reader or in the machine? > narrow definition /Ostensive/ definition. "Narrowing" because it is a (piece of a) definition. (It excludes shallowness.) > your definition is faulty If the reading (interpretation) is. > I don't think you can claim all those thousands/millions of people are wrong Well... > when someone points out problems with it Apart from that "something in the air" of historic duration and consequences, but curiously unusually present here in the latest few days, of heightened communicational struggles, yesterday I thought of other recent exchanges here showing that approach: «Is this place still attended to by people who build things, or is this the turn of consultants who think their job is to shake their heads and present an invoice?». Also with reference with those - present in this club - that use e.g. logic or science to "close paths" instead of furthering them. > Maybe you're thinking of replying claiming all the images I linked above have meaning in them No. I am still thinking of replying that either the creator intended to represent a found structure of proper meanings - concepts refined in a path towards maturity - or the product is phony. If I could kindly ask you to take a brief look to my reply to krapp yesterday: surely a critic may find meaning in a random composition - a critic-in-act would because "we" do, we recognize those structures of meaning we were "internally" developing into all that could represent them (aaand look, that's the Arts - normally, when we reproduce that intentionally) - but then, the art is in the subject, not in the object. So: before you can have an "artist" AI, you have to have a "philosopher" AI. (Sophistication matters little; "modules" do.) Otherwise, you may have a "mockerer" AI, a "trickster", a "deceiver", if there is no substance, no depth under the surface.