5 ms·

not sure about the meaning, which would imply there'd by an answer to what meaning a certain art peace would give. But a human being will have their own reactio

not sure about the meaning, which would imply there'd by an answer to what meaning a certain art peace would give. But a human being will have their own reaction to a peace of art. For example I've often heard said that great art is something which makes you feel something. A machine cannot feel

soco 4y ago
Do we actually know the other human feels that something? We don't, because we only hear them pretending they feel and usually believe them. Well, a machine could pretend just the same - they have enough training data to know what feeling is appropriate to claim.
- Garlef 4y ago
  Also: The feelings humans have are also influenced by their culture. Feelings are not only felt but also enacted. And the enactment influences the feeling. The final scene of midsommar is a great illustration of this.
- vidarh 4y ago
  Once I realised I had aphantasia (I don't see things in my "minds eye"), in my 40's, after having my whole life assumed people who said things like "visualise X" meant it abstractly or metaphorically rather than literally, it really drove home how little most of us understand about the inner mental processes of other people. Even more so seeing people express total disbelief when I explain my aphantasia, or when others point out they don't have an inner monologue or dialogue. Most people have far less understanding of other peoples inner life than they believe they do (and I have come to assume that applies to myself too - being aware that the experience is more different than I thought just barely scratches the surface of understanding it).
- verisimi 4y ago
  Yes. Ultimately this is a question of meaning. Where is meaning to be found? It's going to come as a surprise to many that it is only to be found in the individual. Not in countries, nor in religious groups, or in football teams, or political parties, or any form of collective endeavour. The meaning is inside. We can't know how other human beings feel, nor can we know whether machines can feel. However, it is a safe bet (to me) that other humans are like me (more or less). And that machinery is inanimate, regardless of appearances. But then you will get attempts to anthropomorphise machines, eg giving AI citizenship (as per Sofia in the UAE). What is missed with this sort of anthropomorphising is what is actually occurring: the denigration of what it is to be human and to have meaning. A simulacrum is, by definition, not the thing-in-itself, but for nefarious reasons, this line will be heavily blurred. Imo.
  - soco 4y ago
    We are already drawing lots of lines when antromorphising animals. Does an orangutan give meaning to its drawings? An elephant when it paints? A parakeet or a magpie when decorating their nests? Even fishes do decorations to attract mates, so their mates definitely draw some meaning from those actions. Now if you define "meaning" as something only humans can draw then okay machines won't have that meaning - although we both agreed each human will draw a different meaning anyway. This of course also excludes any sentient aliens from drawing meanings from human art, because well they are not humans. And that we humans will never understand a fish's art because we are not fishes. So meaning is both individual, and species-related? Or either? Which one is now the real meaning, the one the individual draws (then species is not relevant, so why not including machines) or the one the species draws (then it's also a group meaning, so again why not including machines)? Or maybe your corner stone argument is "machinery is inanimate" - which would be another discussion by itself...
    - verisimi 4y ago
      I don't think anthropomorphising animals is in the same category as anthropomorphising inanimate objects. A child might believe their teddy bear to have a character and life, but this is being projected on to the toy by the child. An animal however has its own experience, life, etc. What I've said can be objectively determined, do you agree? I would agree that animals do have a life, but they are not at the same intellectual level as humans. You mention art though - this is a bad example for me - one that is not clear in meaning to humans. I have my own interpretation of what art is. But just that - that I have an interpretation of what art is, this is a difference between humans and complex animals. It is evident that we handle complex concepts, and play with them. This is not the case for animals, and if there is some nascent behaviour like this, it is nothing like at the level that humans do. That covers my views (more or less) on the differences between humans, animals, and inanimate objects (computers, toys). The real point I was making though, is that meaning resides inside oneself. That is where the experience is 'enlivened'. You can watch cartoons move on a screen, actors move on a screen, other people in real life - but all that is just visual/auditory inputs. What gives it meaning is that you 'observe' this. I know people talk about AI becoming sentient etc, but to me this is an impossibility. AI can no more become sentient than can the cartoons on the screen, or stones on the beach. AI can however, give the impression of sentience, better than a toy or something like that. But this is not conscious awareness any more than an actor turning to the screen and talking to the viewer is an example of the TV being sentient. I understand that many scientific people have been trained to objectify themselves, and consider their 'anecdotal experience' as irrelevant or as a rounding error. I think this is a massive error personally, but those with that scientific mindset will not like what I'm saying. There is something special about each individual - the experience of consciousness is infinitely valuable - and although it is possible to conceive of objects doing a passable or great impression of a conscious experience, the difference is akin to seeing a fire on a screen, and experiencing it in person - ie a world of difference.
- mathieuh 4y ago
  If anything I would expect machines to be be better at determining people's feelings. Unless you know the person well, you are using things like facial expressions, body language, and tone of voice to figure out how someone is feeling, and hoping that they react in conventional ways. Now that we've willingly told companies everything about ourselves, for younger people straight from birth sometimes, their machines will be able to use all this context to construct a more accurate picture of how a person might feel about an arbitrary subject. Everyone knows that famous story about a woman being recommended pregnancy-related products before she even knew she was pregnant herself, and that was before this latest round of AI.

soco 4y ago

Do we actually know the other human feels that something? We don't, because we only hear them pretending they feel and usually believe them. Well, a machine could pretend just the same - they have enough training data to know what feeling is appropriate to claim.

Garlef 4y ago
Also: The feelings humans have are also influenced by their culture. Feelings are not only felt but also enacted. And the enactment influences the feeling. The final scene of midsommar is a great illustration of this.
vidarh 4y ago
Once I realised I had aphantasia (I don't see things in my "minds eye"), in my 40's, after having my whole life assumed people who said things like "visualise X" meant it abstractly or metaphorically rather than literally, it really drove home how little most of us understand about the inner mental processes of other people. Even more so seeing people express total disbelief when I explain my aphantasia, or when others point out they don't have an inner monologue or dialogue. Most people have far less understanding of other peoples inner life than they believe they do (and I have come to assume that applies to myself too - being aware that the experience is more different than I thought just barely scratches the surface of understanding it).
verisimi 4y ago
Yes. Ultimately this is a question of meaning. Where is meaning to be found? It's going to come as a surprise to many that it is only to be found in the individual. Not in countries, nor in religious groups, or in football teams, or political parties, or any form of collective endeavour. The meaning is inside. We can't know how other human beings feel, nor can we know whether machines can feel. However, it is a safe bet (to me) that other humans are like me (more or less). And that machinery is inanimate, regardless of appearances. But then you will get attempts to anthropomorphise machines, eg giving AI citizenship (as per Sofia in the UAE). What is missed with this sort of anthropomorphising is what is actually occurring: the denigration of what it is to be human and to have meaning. A simulacrum is, by definition, not the thing-in-itself, but for nefarious reasons, this line will be heavily blurred. Imo.
- soco 4y ago
  We are already drawing lots of lines when antromorphising animals. Does an orangutan give meaning to its drawings? An elephant when it paints? A parakeet or a magpie when decorating their nests? Even fishes do decorations to attract mates, so their mates definitely draw some meaning from those actions. Now if you define "meaning" as something only humans can draw then okay machines won't have that meaning - although we both agreed each human will draw a different meaning anyway. This of course also excludes any sentient aliens from drawing meanings from human art, because well they are not humans. And that we humans will never understand a fish's art because we are not fishes. So meaning is both individual, and species-related? Or either? Which one is now the real meaning, the one the individual draws (then species is not relevant, so why not including machines) or the one the species draws (then it's also a group meaning, so again why not including machines)? Or maybe your corner stone argument is "machinery is inanimate" - which would be another discussion by itself...
  - verisimi 4y ago
    I don't think anthropomorphising animals is in the same category as anthropomorphising inanimate objects. A child might believe their teddy bear to have a character and life, but this is being projected on to the toy by the child. An animal however has its own experience, life, etc. What I've said can be objectively determined, do you agree? I would agree that animals do have a life, but they are not at the same intellectual level as humans. You mention art though - this is a bad example for me - one that is not clear in meaning to humans. I have my own interpretation of what art is. But just that - that I have an interpretation of what art is, this is a difference between humans and complex animals. It is evident that we handle complex concepts, and play with them. This is not the case for animals, and if there is some nascent behaviour like this, it is nothing like at the level that humans do. That covers my views (more or less) on the differences between humans, animals, and inanimate objects (computers, toys). The real point I was making though, is that meaning resides inside oneself. That is where the experience is 'enlivened'. You can watch cartoons move on a screen, actors move on a screen, other people in real life - but all that is just visual/auditory inputs. What gives it meaning is that you 'observe' this. I know people talk about AI becoming sentient etc, but to me this is an impossibility. AI can no more become sentient than can the cartoons on the screen, or stones on the beach. AI can however, give the impression of sentience, better than a toy or something like that. But this is not conscious awareness any more than an actor turning to the screen and talking to the viewer is an example of the TV being sentient. I understand that many scientific people have been trained to objectify themselves, and consider their 'anecdotal experience' as irrelevant or as a rounding error. I think this is a massive error personally, but those with that scientific mindset will not like what I'm saying. There is something special about each individual - the experience of consciousness is infinitely valuable - and although it is possible to conceive of objects doing a passable or great impression of a conscious experience, the difference is akin to seeing a fire on a screen, and experiencing it in person - ie a world of difference.
mathieuh 4y ago
If anything I would expect machines to be be better at determining people's feelings. Unless you know the person well, you are using things like facial expressions, body language, and tone of voice to figure out how someone is feeling, and hoping that they react in conventional ways. Now that we've willingly told companies everything about ourselves, for younger people straight from birth sometimes, their machines will be able to use all this context to construct a more accurate picture of how a person might feel about an arbitrary subject. Everyone knows that famous story about a woman being recommended pregnancy-related products before she even knew she was pregnant herself, and that was before this latest round of AI.