3 ms·

All of your hand waving and jungle gym of qualifications boil down to you thinking AI will "solve" art as a technical problem. Which, of course, is ridiculous.

All of your hand waving and jungle gym of qualifications boil down to you thinking AI will "solve" art as a technical problem. Which, of course, is ridiculous. The purpose of art is to communicate intangible, and sometimes indescribable emotions and ideas about the human condition. It's the difference between a poem and prose describing the same thing using the same words in a different order. When AI can become it's own art critic so perceptive that it can make better qualitative judgements on microscopic levels about what constitutes good and bad art, it will no longer be artificial. It will just be intelligent. Can it remix it? Pantomime it? Demonstrably. Percieve and reason about it at a human enough level to remove humans from the process entirely? Magical thinking. Even if that did happen, and your crowd of starry-eyed bandwagoneers isn't just confusing technology with magic as humans have always done, the fact that your first instinct is to literally rub it in the faces of people who stand to lose the most is unfathomably pathetic. I can't imagine the person who did that would have anything close to the emotional perception and sophistication to reason about how most people perceive something as fundamentally emotional as art. You don't just need therapy, you need to read philosophy. I'm completely done with this pointless pedantic argument against your lack of understanding.

satvikpendem 4y ago
There it is, only humans can make art, your paragraph is proving my own point. This is exactly the type of thing I'm talking about as I mentioned with non-technical people. The people who say this simply can't perceive that there is nothing special about humans and our brains that can't be replicated. It's because I've read enough philosophy that I'm a physicalist and not a dualist. Continue thinking that humans are more than biological machines while other people continue to make more and more powerful AI. And if you're done with this argument, as you've mentioned a few times over threads, I'm not sure why you continue to reply.
- DrewADesign 4y ago
  Well you made a liar of me again because I'm going to take a swing at yet another soft ball you've lobbed. If you don't think there's anything fundamentally different about human brains and current computing technology, you should actually try reading neurologists' research about the structure of the human brain. Or any neurons at all. To quote Christof Koch-- chief scientific officer at the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle-- from a Wired article “The roundworm has exactly 302 neurons, and we still have no frigging idea how this animal works.” (Maybe he hasn't thought to ask an AI enthusiast!) We're not even close to knowing what every part of the brain does, or even have a complete model of how individual biological neurons work, let alone know how we would replicate them, let alone have the potential for doing so in my career. https://nautil.us/the-big-problem-with-big-science-ventureslike-the-human-brain-project-235387/ https://nautil.us/the-big-problem-with-big-science-venturesl... Might this happen in a really, really long time? Maybe? We're sure as hell not going to do it with a cluster of GPUs. The actual functions of the neurochemical parts that drive emotion are one of the parts we know least about. So I guess I'm in this for the long haul. What other aspect of this topic can you make bold declarations about without actually having checked if they're correct? -------- EDIT: I once again can't reply because HN probably has better sense than I do. The context of this conversation is the VFX industry. Your assertion was that people who work in the VFX industry shouldn't be surprised if AI takes their jobs. You've moved the goalpost continents from that argument, instead arguing that you're still theoretically correct because in some distant future, science will prevail in mimicking or creating biological machines that can perceive emotion. Please re-read what I said. In the very first comment I made where I said "Maybe a subsequent generation that is vastly more precise, but this isn't even ballpark." And then after that I said that when we get to the stage where machines can do this, it'll philosophically be actual intelligence and not artificial intelligence. Pretending that's in the scope of this conversation is just daft. And then in this very comment where I mused that it might happen in a really long time. We both know that's not relevant to the current VFX industry and you're just not capable of admitting you're wrong. Any other topics you'd like to pretend the discussion is about so you can pretend you're still correct?
  - satvikpendem 4y ago
    Don't make a God of the gaps type argument, just because we don't know doesn't mean it's unknowable. If one believes in a scientific universe where laws govern reality, then one must accept the fact that brains are biological machines, where removing any part affects the qualia that an organism experiences. Also, I never said that only GPUs are going to create a general intelligence. For example, if we clone a human brain in the future, we'd get the same outcome. You are again missing my entire point, which is to not say things like something is "never" going to happen if we already observe it happening. I'm not sure how many times I can repeat this point over and over. If you disagree that brains are not biological machines or that they can be replicated by humans through technology, just tell me now and we can stop, that is a fundamental difference that is unreconcilable in just an HN conversation.

satvikpendem 4y ago

There it is, only humans can make art, your paragraph is proving my own point. This is exactly the type of thing I'm talking about as I mentioned with non-technical people. The people who say this simply can't perceive that there is nothing special about humans and our brains that can't be replicated. It's because I've read enough philosophy that I'm a physicalist and not a dualist. Continue thinking that humans are more than biological machines while other people continue to make more and more powerful AI. And if you're done with this argument, as you've mentioned a few times over threads, I'm not sure why you continue to reply.

DrewADesign 4y ago
Well you made a liar of me again because I'm going to take a swing at yet another soft ball you've lobbed. If you don't think there's anything fundamentally different about human brains and current computing technology, you should actually try reading neurologists' research about the structure of the human brain. Or any neurons at all. To quote Christof Koch-- chief scientific officer at the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle-- from a Wired article “The roundworm has exactly 302 neurons, and we still have no frigging idea how this animal works.” (Maybe he hasn't thought to ask an AI enthusiast!) We're not even close to knowing what every part of the brain does, or even have a complete model of how individual biological neurons work, let alone know how we would replicate them, let alone have the potential for doing so in my career. https://nautil.us/the-big-problem-with-big-science-ventureslike-the-human-brain-project-235387/ https://nautil.us/the-big-problem-with-big-science-venturesl... Might this happen in a really, really long time? Maybe? We're sure as hell not going to do it with a cluster of GPUs. The actual functions of the neurochemical parts that drive emotion are one of the parts we know least about. So I guess I'm in this for the long haul. What other aspect of this topic can you make bold declarations about without actually having checked if they're correct? -------- EDIT: I once again can't reply because HN probably has better sense than I do. The context of this conversation is the VFX industry. Your assertion was that people who work in the VFX industry shouldn't be surprised if AI takes their jobs. You've moved the goalpost continents from that argument, instead arguing that you're still theoretically correct because in some distant future, science will prevail in mimicking or creating biological machines that can perceive emotion. Please re-read what I said. In the very first comment I made where I said "Maybe a subsequent generation that is vastly more precise, but this isn't even ballpark." And then after that I said that when we get to the stage where machines can do this, it'll philosophically be actual intelligence and not artificial intelligence. Pretending that's in the scope of this conversation is just daft. And then in this very comment where I mused that it might happen in a really long time. We both know that's not relevant to the current VFX industry and you're just not capable of admitting you're wrong. Any other topics you'd like to pretend the discussion is about so you can pretend you're still correct?
- satvikpendem 4y ago
  Don't make a God of the gaps type argument, just because we don't know doesn't mean it's unknowable. If one believes in a scientific universe where laws govern reality, then one must accept the fact that brains are biological machines, where removing any part affects the qualia that an organism experiences. Also, I never said that only GPUs are going to create a general intelligence. For example, if we clone a human brain in the future, we'd get the same outcome. You are again missing my entire point, which is to not say things like something is "never" going to happen if we already observe it happening. I'm not sure how many times I can repeat this point over and over. If you disagree that brains are not biological machines or that they can be replicated by humans through technology, just tell me now and we can stop, that is a fundamental difference that is unreconcilable in just an HN conversation.