Comment by mdp2021
2 years ago
That "tweet" loses a veneer if you see that we value what has Worth as a collective treasure, and the more Value is produced the better - while that one engages in producing something of value is (hopefully but not necessarily) a good exercise in intelligent (literal sense) cultivation.
So, yes, if algorithms strict or loose could one day produce Art, and Thought, and Judgement, of Superior quality: very welcome.
Do not miss that the current world is increasingly complex to manage, and our lives, and Aids would be welcome. The situation is much more complex than that wish for leisure or even "sport" (literal sense).
> 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?
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.
> “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.
2 replies →
> 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?".
> 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!
3 replies →