3 ms·

> we value what has Worth as a collective treasure, and the more Value is produced the better ... So, yes, if algorithms strict or loose could one day produce A

> we value what has Worth as a collective treasure, and the more Value is produced the better ... So, yes, if algorithms strict or loose could one day produce Art, and Thought, and Judgement, of Superior quality: very welcome. Except that's not how we value the "worth" of something. If "Art, and Thought, and Judgement" -- be they of "Superior quality" or not -- could be produced by machines, they'd be worth a heck of a lot less. (Come to think of it, hasn't that process already begun?) Also, WTF is up with the weird capitalisations? Are you from Germany, or just from the seventeenth century?

dartos 2y ago
The issue I have with all of these discussions is how vague everyone always is. “Art” isn’t a single thing. It’s not just pretty pictures. AI can’t make art. And give a good solid definition for thought which doesn’t depend on lived experiences while we’re at it. You can’t. We don’t have one. “AGI” as well.
- mdp2021 2y ago
  > “Art” isn’t a single thing. It’s not just pretty pictures And this is why it was capitalized as "Art", proper Art. > AI can’t make art Not really: "we may not yet have AI that makes art". But if a process that creates, that generates (proper sense) art is fully replicated, anything that can run that process can make Art. > And give a good solid definition for [T]hought The production of ideas which are truthful and important. > which doesn’t depend on lived experiences while we’re at it. You can’t Yes we can abstract from instances to patterns and rules. But it matters only relatively: if the idea is clear - and ideas can be very clear to us - we do not need to describe them in detail, we just look at them. > AGI” as well A process of refinement of the ideas composing a world model according to truthfulness and completeness.
  - dartos 2y ago
    > proper Art. That’s not a real thing. There’s no single definition for what art is as it’s a social construct. It depends on culture. > anything that can run process can make art Again without a definition of art, this makes no sense. Slime mold can run processes, but it doesn’t make art as art is a human cultural phenomenon. > the production of ideas that are truthful and important What does “ideas” and “important” mean? To an LLM, there are no ideas. We humans are personifying them and creating our own ideas. What is “important,” again, is a cultural thing. If we can’t define it, we can’t train a model to understand it > yes we can abstract from instances to patterns and rules. What? Abstraction is not defining. > we do not need to describe them in detail “We” humans can, yes. But machines can not because thought, again, is a human phenomenon. > world model Again, what does this mean? Magic perfect future prediction algorithm? We’ve had soothsayers for thousands of years /s It seems to me that you’ve got it in your head that since we can make a computer generate understandable text using statistics that machines are now capable of understanding deeply human phenomena. I’m sorry to break it to you, but we’re not there yet. Maybe one day, but not now (I don’t think ever, as long as we’re relying on statistics) It’s hard enough for us to describe deeply human phenomena through language to other humans.
    - mdp2021 2y ago
      > It seems to me that you’ve got it in your head Do us all a favour and never again keep assumptions in your head: your misunderstanding was beyond scale. Do not guess. Back to the discussion from the origin: a poster defends the idea that the purpose of AI would be in enabling leisure and possibly sport (through alleviating menial tasks) - not in producing cultural output. He was replied first that cultural output having value, it is welcome from all sources (provided the Value is real), and second that the needs are beyond menial tasks, given that we have a large deficit in proper thought and proper judgement. The literal sentence was «yes, if algorithms strict or loose could one day produce Art, and Thought, and Judgement, of Superior quality: very welcome», which refers to the future, so it cannot be interpreted in the possibility being available now. You have brought LLMs to the topic when LLMs are irrelevant (and you have stated that you «personify[] them»!). LLMs have nothing to do with this branch of discussion. You see things that are said as «vague», and miss definitions for things: but we have instead very clear ideas. We just do not bring the textual explosion of all those ideas in our posts. Now: you have a world in front of you; of that world you create a mental model; the mental model can have a formal representation; details of that model can be insightful to the truthful prosecution of the model itself: that is Art or Thought or Judgement according to different qualities of said detail; the truthful prosecution of the model has Value and is Important - it has, if only given the cost of the consequences of actions under inaccurate models.
mdp2021 2y ago
> Except that's not how we value the "worth" of something In that case, are you sure your evaluation is proper? If a masterpiece is there, and it /is/ a masterpiece (beyond appearances), why would its source change its nature and quality? > Come to think of it, hasn't that process already begun? Please present relevant examples: I have already observed in the past that simulations of the art made by X cannot just look similar but require the process, the justification, the meanings that had X producing them. The style of X is not just thickness of lines, temperature of colours and flatness of shades: it is in the meanings that X wanted to express and convey. > WTF is up with the weird capitalisations? Platonic terms - the Ideas in the Hyperuranium. E.g. "This action is good, but what is Good?".
- CRConrad 2y ago
  > E.g. "This action is good, but what is Good?". Faking thinking isn't “Thinking”. Art is supposed to have some thought behind it; therefore, “art” created by faking thinking isn't “Art”. Should be utterly fucking obvious. > Platonic terms - the Ideas in the Hyperuranium. Oh my god, couldn't you please try to come off as a bit more pretentious? You're only tying yourself into knots with that bullshit; see your failure to recognise the simple truth above. Remember: KISS!
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    No, CRConrad, no. You misunderstood what was said. Having put those capital initials in the words was exactly to mean "if we get to the Real Thing". You are stating that in order to get Art, Thinking and Judgement we need Proper processes: and nobody said differently! I wrote that «if algorithms strict or loose could one day produce Art, and Thought, and Judgement, of Superior quality [this will be] very welcome». There is nothing in there that implies that "fake thinking" will produce A-T-J (picked at writing as the most important possible results I could see); there is an implicit statement that Proper processes (i.e. "real thinking") could be artificially obtained, when we will find out how. Of course the implementation of a mockery of "thought" will not lead to any Real A-T-J (the capitals were for "Real"); but if we will manage to implement it, then we will obtain Art, and Thought, and Judgement - and this will be a collective gain, because we need more and more of them. Irregardless if the source has more carbon or more silicon in it. «Faking thinking» is not "implementing thinking". From a good implementation of thinking you get the Real Thing - by definition. That we are not there yet does not mean it will not come. (Just a note: with "Thought" in the "A-T-J" I meant "good insight". Of course good thinking is required to obtain that and the rest - say, "proper processes", as it is indifferent whether it spawns from an algorithmic form or a natural one.) > KISS May I remind you of Einstein's "As simple as possible, but not oversimplified". > only Intellectual instruments can be of course quite valid and productive if used well - the whole of a developed mind comes from their use and refinement. You asked about the capitals, I told you what they are (when you see them in the wild). > see your failure to recognise Actually, that was a strawman on your side out of misunderstanding...

dartos 2y ago

The issue I have with all of these discussions is how vague everyone always is. “Art” isn’t a single thing. It’s not just pretty pictures. AI can’t make art. And give a good solid definition for thought which doesn’t depend on lived experiences while we’re at it. You can’t. We don’t have one. “AGI” as well.

mdp2021 2y ago
> “Art” isn’t a single thing. It’s not just pretty pictures And this is why it was capitalized as "Art", proper Art. > AI can’t make art Not really: "we may not yet have AI that makes art". But if a process that creates, that generates (proper sense) art is fully replicated, anything that can run that process can make Art. > And give a good solid definition for [T]hought The production of ideas which are truthful and important. > which doesn’t depend on lived experiences while we’re at it. You can’t Yes we can abstract from instances to patterns and rules. But it matters only relatively: if the idea is clear - and ideas can be very clear to us - we do not need to describe them in detail, we just look at them. > AGI” as well A process of refinement of the ideas composing a world model according to truthfulness and completeness.
- dartos 2y ago
  > proper Art. That’s not a real thing. There’s no single definition for what art is as it’s a social construct. It depends on culture. > anything that can run process can make art Again without a definition of art, this makes no sense. Slime mold can run processes, but it doesn’t make art as art is a human cultural phenomenon. > the production of ideas that are truthful and important What does “ideas” and “important” mean? To an LLM, there are no ideas. We humans are personifying them and creating our own ideas. What is “important,” again, is a cultural thing. If we can’t define it, we can’t train a model to understand it > yes we can abstract from instances to patterns and rules. What? Abstraction is not defining. > we do not need to describe them in detail “We” humans can, yes. But machines can not because thought, again, is a human phenomenon. > world model Again, what does this mean? Magic perfect future prediction algorithm? We’ve had soothsayers for thousands of years /s It seems to me that you’ve got it in your head that since we can make a computer generate understandable text using statistics that machines are now capable of understanding deeply human phenomena. I’m sorry to break it to you, but we’re not there yet. Maybe one day, but not now (I don’t think ever, as long as we’re relying on statistics) It’s hard enough for us to describe deeply human phenomena through language to other humans.
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    > It seems to me that you’ve got it in your head Do us all a favour and never again keep assumptions in your head: your misunderstanding was beyond scale. Do not guess. Back to the discussion from the origin: a poster defends the idea that the purpose of AI would be in enabling leisure and possibly sport (through alleviating menial tasks) - not in producing cultural output. He was replied first that cultural output having value, it is welcome from all sources (provided the Value is real), and second that the needs are beyond menial tasks, given that we have a large deficit in proper thought and proper judgement. The literal sentence was «yes, if algorithms strict or loose could one day produce Art, and Thought, and Judgement, of Superior quality: very welcome», which refers to the future, so it cannot be interpreted in the possibility being available now. You have brought LLMs to the topic when LLMs are irrelevant (and you have stated that you «personify[] them»!). LLMs have nothing to do with this branch of discussion. You see things that are said as «vague», and miss definitions for things: but we have instead very clear ideas. We just do not bring the textual explosion of all those ideas in our posts. Now: you have a world in front of you; of that world you create a mental model; the mental model can have a formal representation; details of that model can be insightful to the truthful prosecution of the model itself: that is Art or Thought or Judgement according to different qualities of said detail; the truthful prosecution of the model has Value and is Important - it has, if only given the cost of the consequences of actions under inaccurate models.

mdp2021 2y ago

> Except that's not how we value the "worth" of something In that case, are you sure your evaluation is proper? If a masterpiece is there, and it /is/ a masterpiece (beyond appearances), why would its source change its nature and quality? > Come to think of it, hasn't that process already begun? Please present relevant examples: I have already observed in the past that simulations of the art made by X cannot just look similar but require the process, the justification, the meanings that had X producing them. The style of X is not just thickness of lines, temperature of colours and flatness of shades: it is in the meanings that X wanted to express and convey. > WTF is up with the weird capitalisations? Platonic terms - the Ideas in the Hyperuranium. E.g. "This action is good, but what is Good?".

CRConrad 2y ago
> E.g. "This action is good, but what is Good?". Faking thinking isn't “Thinking”. Art is supposed to have some thought behind it; therefore, “art” created by faking thinking isn't “Art”. Should be utterly fucking obvious. > Platonic terms - the Ideas in the Hyperuranium. Oh my god, couldn't you please try to come off as a bit more pretentious? You're only tying yourself into knots with that bullshit; see your failure to recognise the simple truth above. Remember: KISS!
- mdp2021 2y ago
  No, CRConrad, no. You misunderstood what was said. Having put those capital initials in the words was exactly to mean "if we get to the Real Thing". You are stating that in order to get Art, Thinking and Judgement we need Proper processes: and nobody said differently! I wrote that «if algorithms strict or loose could one day produce Art, and Thought, and Judgement, of Superior quality [this will be] very welcome». There is nothing in there that implies that "fake thinking" will produce A-T-J (picked at writing as the most important possible results I could see); there is an implicit statement that Proper processes (i.e. "real thinking") could be artificially obtained, when we will find out how. Of course the implementation of a mockery of "thought" will not lead to any Real A-T-J (the capitals were for "Real"); but if we will manage to implement it, then we will obtain Art, and Thought, and Judgement - and this will be a collective gain, because we need more and more of them. Irregardless if the source has more carbon or more silicon in it. «Faking thinking» is not "implementing thinking". From a good implementation of thinking you get the Real Thing - by definition. That we are not there yet does not mean it will not come. (Just a note: with "Thought" in the "A-T-J" I meant "good insight". Of course good thinking is required to obtain that and the rest - say, "proper processes", as it is indifferent whether it spawns from an algorithmic form or a natural one.) > KISS May I remind you of Einstein's "As simple as possible, but not oversimplified". > only Intellectual instruments can be of course quite valid and productive if used well - the whole of a developed mind comes from their use and refinement. You asked about the capitals, I told you what they are (when you see them in the wild). > see your failure to recognise Actually, that was a strawman on your side out of misunderstanding...