3 ms·

> at least for now, 3D printing might change that > Dancing is one that will be very hard to copy I'm not sure I'd hang my hat on a particular current inabili

> at least for now, 3D printing might change that > Dancing is one that will be very hard to copy I'm not sure I'd hang my hat on a particular current inability of AI, particularly inabilities where there's no obvious impediment to AI doing it. You're just begging for AI to eventually gain that ability, and now you're back where you started. Hooking AI up to physical actuators and getting it to work properly strikes me as a "this will 100% happen, I guarantee this is already being worked on" situation; basing your self-worth off the inability of AI to do those things seems like a ticking time bomb.

achenet 4y ago
alright then, I'll fallback to my backup - humans are cheaper. They don't require mining rare earth metals, they're more versatile, and uh... oh gosh it's only a matter of time before we're all replaced by cheap carbon based robots. It's been real <3
binarymax 4y ago
Indeed, this is already happening. This company is using human artist works for now, but the leap to a model producing such art is quite small at this point: https://art.art/blog/portia-de-rossi https://art.art/blog/portia-de-rossi
nonameiguess 4y ago
Seems like this is missing the point of dance, at least part of which is specifically watching humans. Right now, a pitching machine can throw harder than a human, but we still restrict baseball teams to only having humans on them. An automated motorbike can cover 100 meters faster than any human, but we don't allow motorbikes to compete in an Olympic sprint competition. A mechanical sumo wrestler wouldn't need to be intelligent, just heavier than the heaviest competitor, and it could already win against any human right now, but we don't do that. Similarly, people still play chess, go, and Starcraft even though AI can beat them. Human Jeopardy matches still get televised even though Watson could beat them. We still have math olympics even though Wolfram Alpha could have won all of them decades ago. I think human dancers are safe for as long as there are humans.
- electroly 4y ago
  Exactly. Things in life are not valuable pursuits just because an AI can't do them, nor do they stop being valuable once an AI can participate. OP seemed to suggest that AI being confined to digital art means that physical art still has value, but it doesn't follow at all. If I strap a paintbrush to a computer with AI, it doesn't devalue human painting. They're not related in that way.

achenet 4y ago

alright then, I'll fallback to my backup - humans are cheaper. They don't require mining rare earth metals, they're more versatile, and uh... oh gosh it's only a matter of time before we're all replaced by cheap carbon based robots. It's been real <3

binarymax 4y ago

Indeed, this is already happening. This company is using human artist works for now, but the leap to a model producing such art is quite small at this point: https://art.art/blog/portia-de-rossi https://art.art/blog/portia-de-rossi

nonameiguess 4y ago

Seems like this is missing the point of dance, at least part of which is specifically watching humans. Right now, a pitching machine can throw harder than a human, but we still restrict baseball teams to only having humans on them. An automated motorbike can cover 100 meters faster than any human, but we don't allow motorbikes to compete in an Olympic sprint competition. A mechanical sumo wrestler wouldn't need to be intelligent, just heavier than the heaviest competitor, and it could already win against any human right now, but we don't do that. Similarly, people still play chess, go, and Starcraft even though AI can beat them. Human Jeopardy matches still get televised even though Watson could beat them. We still have math olympics even though Wolfram Alpha could have won all of them decades ago. I think human dancers are safe for as long as there are humans.

electroly 4y ago
Exactly. Things in life are not valuable pursuits just because an AI can't do them, nor do they stop being valuable once an AI can participate. OP seemed to suggest that AI being confined to digital art means that physical art still has value, but it doesn't follow at all. If I strap a paintbrush to a computer with AI, it doesn't devalue human painting. They're not related in that way.