3 ms·

Whether a machine can sing like a human does not matter much as far as appreciation of art: all art is self-expression, and self-expression always requires a se

Whether a machine can sing like a human does not matter much as far as appreciation of art: all art is self-expression, and self-expression always requires a self to express and a self to receive. Someone programmed the voice to sing something to someone for some reason. Both human and software-generated singing exist today, and either can be boring nonsense or speak to you and leave an emotional impact. (That said, if said machine is actually a derivative work produced from vocal samples without appropriate licensing, that’d make it dubious legally or morally. To my knowledge, preexisting software-generated singing like Vocaloid does not suffer from this problem.)

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
The production of art demonstrably does not require a self. The production of art that people want to experience probably requires a self, but may only require the belief that a self was involved. The experience of art requires a self, as do all experiences.
- anileated 3y ago
  If your definition of art includes things made without a self, a thinking mind with intention and agency then go ahead and ponder how the Sun and human DNA are art, I’ll wait for when you come back with a new definition.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    that there can be art made without a self does not imply that anything made without a self is art. that there are things made which are art does not imply that anything made is art. that things can be made does not imply that everything is made.
    - anileated 3y ago
      You are welcome to produce a definition that separates those things. You have seen my definition. By definition an act of self-expression cannot occur without a self. Without clarifying what makes something art, your claim that art can be something produced without a self (i.e., is not self-expression) demotes art to the level of “any random thing”.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago

The production of art demonstrably does not require a self. The production of art that people want to experience probably requires a self, but may only require the belief that a self was involved. The experience of art requires a self, as do all experiences.

anileated 3y ago
If your definition of art includes things made without a self, a thinking mind with intention and agency then go ahead and ponder how the Sun and human DNA are art, I’ll wait for when you come back with a new definition.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  that there can be art made without a self does not imply that anything made without a self is art. that there are things made which are art does not imply that anything made is art. that things can be made does not imply that everything is made.
  - anileated 3y ago
    You are welcome to produce a definition that separates those things. You have seen my definition. By definition an act of self-expression cannot occur without a self. Without clarifying what makes something art, your claim that art can be something produced without a self (i.e., is not self-expression) demotes art to the level of “any random thing”.