4 ms·

Art that human beings actually care about is not the commercial art many people are referencing here. Art is not pretty pictures. Art is not a expensively produ

Art that human beings actually care about is not the commercial art many people are referencing here. Art is not pretty pictures. Art is not a expensively produced media. Art is a human communication concerning the realizations of finite life. However, Art being Art, it does not communicate these issues in immature direct language, Art communicates through richly layered metaphor. Real Art, that which moves one's soul, is beyond the capabilities of artificial intelligence for a large number of reasons, chief of which because it is a communication between beings aware of finite existence. Note, I am not saying the consumer markets will not be flooded with cheap mimicry of art as pooped out by ignorant noncomprehending AIs. That will most definitely happen. And a generation of would be fine artists will never pursue their innate vocation thanks to the misconception that AI is capable of creating Art (which it cannot.) However, you do not have to fall for the stupidity most are caught. If you have an artistic vocation, realize that indirection and metaphor are your human creative super powers that AI cannot touch. Metaphor requires comprehension and often complex interwoven comprehensions, which is so far out of AI’s reach it is laughable the general pubic believes otherwise. AIs are idiots when you know them well. They have zero capacity to create Real Art composed of complex metaphors embodied in a form other than how they appear.

dqpb 4y ago
> Real Art, that which moves one's soul, is beyond the capabilities of artificial intelligence It’s easy to test. Show people “real” art and AI generated art and see how often they can tell which is which.
- bsenftner 4y ago
  That won't work. Art is also not a popularity contest.
  - dqpb 4y ago
    Then who is the arbiter of “real” art?
    - bsenftner 4y ago
      Nobody. Does it move your soul? Does it feel important that it exists? Does it matter if someone destroys it? These are answers nobody can collectively make, and that is why Art is simultaneously a grand fraud and the frontier of human reasoning. It cannot be defined because it exists on the edge of reason. The moment it can be created without a human communication behind it, it ceases to be Art.
      - dqpb 4y ago
        Some DALL-E art moves my soul. It’s important to me that it exists. It would matter if it was destroyed. So, I guess that settles it.
        bsenftner 4y ago
        Human curated DALL-E art. The AI just generates, the human curators, even if it is you, created the art. Recognition the generation communicates something within is the distinction, that's how "found art" became a thing.
        zasdffaa 4y ago
        I suspect you are going to repeatedly move the goalposts to keep the human in. Perhaps that's right, perhaps not but perhaps also ask yourself why you feel the emotional need to.
        bsenftner 4y ago
        That is the nature of Art, it is a dynamic frontier, the edge of human communication and understanding. It is where our communication languages combine to speak what we've not said yet because we are yet maturing as a species and learning how to speak to ourselves.
        zasdffaa 4y ago
        I've no idea if that even means anything. I'll say it then, I think that's a load of tripe.
fleddr 4y ago
"Art being Art, it does not communicate these issues in immature direct language, Art communicates through richly layered metaphor." True, as is seen in the "banana with duct tape".
visarga 4y ago
> They have zero capacity to create Real Art composed of complex metaphors embodied in a form other than how they appear. Wait 5 years until the first android AI is being raised as a child and develops first hand embodied and social knowledge.
- Planktonne 4y ago
  We've been 'waiting for 5 years' on this one for centuries; like so many unrealised technologies, it's apparently always just around the corner.
- bsenftner 4y ago
  We lack fundamental science, such as no theory at all for artificial comprehension. That "first android baby" within 5 years is theater and fraud. (Which, incidentally could be Art.)
  - visarga 4y ago
    Well, "artificial" does come from "art" (ars + fex = skill + make) > From Middle English artificial (“man-made”) via Old French (modern French artificiel), from Latin artificiālis from artificium (“skill”), from artifex, from ars (“skill”), and -fex, from facere (“to make”). Regarding the artificial baby - I was thinking along the lines of putting the Gato [1] model in an android body. Nothing wild technologically, just give it the experience of having a family, friends, things to do, like we do for kids. This will induce the agent to form the same kind of value judgements as people make. It won't be just trained on the whole internet, but have access to the real world + human society, the best training dataset. I believe the lack of access to the real world, the human society and a humanoid body is what keeps AI models from being more human-like. We can't become a developed human without society, for example. Why would AI be able to? The next step in AI is not about the neural net architecture but the curriculum, especially real world exposure. [1] https://www.deepmind.com/publications/a-generalist-agent https://www.deepmind.com/publications/a-generalist-agent

dqpb 4y ago

> Real Art, that which moves one's soul, is beyond the capabilities of artificial intelligence It’s easy to test. Show people “real” art and AI generated art and see how often they can tell which is which.

bsenftner 4y ago
That won't work. Art is also not a popularity contest.
- dqpb 4y ago
  Then who is the arbiter of “real” art?
  - bsenftner 4y ago
    Nobody. Does it move your soul? Does it feel important that it exists? Does it matter if someone destroys it? These are answers nobody can collectively make, and that is why Art is simultaneously a grand fraud and the frontier of human reasoning. It cannot be defined because it exists on the edge of reason. The moment it can be created without a human communication behind it, it ceases to be Art.
    - dqpb 4y ago
      Some DALL-E art moves my soul. It’s important to me that it exists. It would matter if it was destroyed. So, I guess that settles it.
      - bsenftner 4y ago
        Human curated DALL-E art. The AI just generates, the human curators, even if it is you, created the art. Recognition the generation communicates something within is the distinction, that's how "found art" became a thing.
        zasdffaa 4y ago
        I suspect you are going to repeatedly move the goalposts to keep the human in. Perhaps that's right, perhaps not but perhaps also ask yourself why you feel the emotional need to.
        bsenftner 4y ago
        That is the nature of Art, it is a dynamic frontier, the edge of human communication and understanding. It is where our communication languages combine to speak what we've not said yet because we are yet maturing as a species and learning how to speak to ourselves.
        zasdffaa 4y ago
        I've no idea if that even means anything. I'll say it then, I think that's a load of tripe.

fleddr 4y ago

"Art being Art, it does not communicate these issues in immature direct language, Art communicates through richly layered metaphor." True, as is seen in the "banana with duct tape".

visarga 4y ago

> They have zero capacity to create Real Art composed of complex metaphors embodied in a form other than how they appear. Wait 5 years until the first android AI is being raised as a child and develops first hand embodied and social knowledge.

Planktonne 4y ago
We've been 'waiting for 5 years' on this one for centuries; like so many unrealised technologies, it's apparently always just around the corner.
bsenftner 4y ago
We lack fundamental science, such as no theory at all for artificial comprehension. That "first android baby" within 5 years is theater and fraud. (Which, incidentally could be Art.)
- visarga 4y ago
  Well, "artificial" does come from "art" (ars + fex = skill + make) > From Middle English artificial (“man-made”) via Old French (modern French artificiel), from Latin artificiālis from artificium (“skill”), from artifex, from ars (“skill”), and -fex, from facere (“to make”). Regarding the artificial baby - I was thinking along the lines of putting the Gato [1] model in an android body. Nothing wild technologically, just give it the experience of having a family, friends, things to do, like we do for kids. This will induce the agent to form the same kind of value judgements as people make. It won't be just trained on the whole internet, but have access to the real world + human society, the best training dataset. I believe the lack of access to the real world, the human society and a humanoid body is what keeps AI models from being more human-like. We can't become a developed human without society, for example. Why would AI be able to? The next step in AI is not about the neural net architecture but the curriculum, especially real world exposure. [1] https://www.deepmind.com/publications/a-generalist-agent https://www.deepmind.com/publications/a-generalist-agent