Posted: Mar 17, 2018 1:00 am
jamest wrote:Matthew Shute wrote:Keep It Real wrote:I currantly think the arts (fictional literature; Music; Scupture etc) should be forbidden to AI so that we humans have some permanent avenues for expression/use/productivity/worth.
That sounds unenforceable, though, and for all we know we could be depriving ourselves of some really great art/music. Such might seem far-fetched with current AI technology, but for the AIs of the coming decades...? Also, how does an AI writing novels or composing music prevent us from expressing ourselves in those ways? It might become gradually harder to make money at it, I'll concede, but I suspect that there'll be a market for art and stories made by actual humans (v1.0) as long as there are still humans (v1.0) around.The_Piper wrote:The cat's out of the bag with that already.
True. There's already a fair bit of AI-composed music out there, for example.
You can program a computer to give any ordered or random signal/output, completely contingent upon the ordered input. That doesn't make it 'art', even if pretty.
I take it that you're thinking of relatively simple computer programs here, though, which is the reason AI art sounds far-fetched in the first place. We don't know how far the technology will go. One of the long term holy grails of AI is reverse-engineering the human brain and then using the principles of its architecture and functioning to build artificial brains that are equivalent, just more and faster. Ideally, embodied, with a full range of senses, the ability to form memories like we do, and all the rest. Now, I appreciate that you don't think brains even exist, much less have anything to do with art, but such considerations will become irrelevant if we ever get close to anything like the above, and such entities produce books and music. Because that's when the art critics and music-listeners weigh in and actually decide whether something is art or not.
ETA: Indeed, the point of contemporary/modern art is to "make one think" about the artist's intentions, and computers do NOT have intent. So, fuck that bollocks of an idea - that computers can be artists - since they themselves are neither responsible for their output nor the fact that they want 'you' to think.
I've heard a lot of bollocks in my life, but the notion that computers can be artistic is a propagandistic example of fundamental materialism at work, nothing else.
Again, I'm not necessarily talking about any classical computer, even, but AI in general. I think you're rather hampered here by your metaphysical blinkers and a general lack of imagination as to what technology could look like in another 50 - 100 years, say.