• 155 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Posted by Jeust (10768 posts) 10 months, 26 days ago

Poll: Do you believe a computer inteligence will ever be able to produce an acclaimed work of art? (224 votes)

Yes. 74%
No. 26%

Do you believe an artificial inteligence will be capable of producing a successful book, or paiting, or film? A War and Peace romance? A Renoir painting? Or a Pulp Fiction?

Yes or No? And why?

#1 Posted by Jeust (10768 posts) -

Personally I don't believe it. Because it would be needed sensibility, the capacity to feel and being struck by a stimuli. The essence of living. And even harder would be to try and encompass the gap between a human and a cyber sensibility.

#2 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@jeust said:

Because it would be needed sensibility, the capacity to feel and being struck by a stimuli.

Why can't a machine have any of that?

#3 Posted by Morningstar (2194 posts) -

No, I do not.

#4 Edited by Jeust (10768 posts) -

@video_game_king said:

@jeust said:

Because it would be needed sensibility, the capacity to feel and being struck by a stimuli.

Why can't a machine have any of that?

Because a machine as of now is programmed to have an array of responses to a given stimuli. There is not programmed to feel helpless, or awestruck by anything, it is programmed to under some circunstance work in an array of ways. The term is automatic. It is automatic in its processes. It's precise in its making,

That's probably is why the discovery of virtual inteligence is brought in literature, movies and games as a mistake, an error. Because in its design is limited by human understanding, and designed to be a tool.

#5 Posted by spraynardtatum (3288 posts) -

Johnny Five is an acclaimed work of art.

Online
#6 Posted by Fattony12000 (7547 posts) -
@jeust said:

Do you believe an artificial inteligence will be capable of producing a successful book, or paiting, or film? A War and Peace romance? A Renoir painting? Or a Pulp Fiction?

Are you a robot?

#7 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@jeust said:

The term is automatic. It is automatic in its processes. It's precise in its making,

And humans aren't?

#8 Posted by WickedFather (1733 posts) -

Without a shadow of a doubt. We're computers made of meat limited in progress by evolution. Our creation of machine intelligence will catch up and overtake faster than nature can. Thinking it won't is rather babyish and holding human intelligence above all is like the religious ignorance of claiming anything wonderful is god's work.

#9 Edited by Humanity (9633 posts) -

Of course, in the William Gibson novel Count Zero SPOILERS an AI created wonderful works of art - and as we all know the world of William Gibson is basically an inevitable future we're future.

#10 Edited by SamStrife (1286 posts) -

Yes but I don't think anyone would know a robot did it until after it won awards/gained acclaim. I think it will be revealed as a big shocker after.

Art critiquing is bullshit though.

#11 Edited by Jeust (10768 posts) -

@jeust said:

The term is automatic. It is automatic in its processes. It's precise in its making,

And humans aren't?

No. If men were automatic there wouldn't be evolution. A machine is designed to do a certain task given by a person, it doesn't have free will. A person has the free will to choose a goal and choose the way to approach it.

#12 Posted by Jeust (10768 posts) -

@jeust said:

Do you believe an artificial inteligence will be capable of producing a successful book, or paiting, or film? A War and Peace romance? A Renoir painting? Or a Pulp Fiction?

Are you a robot?

Yes! And I'll prove all the sceptics WORONG! WRONG I TELL YOU!

#13 Edited by CaLe (4023 posts) -

Yes, just make a robotic arm that throws paint on a canvas and already you've got abstract art. Abstract art is the most bullshit of arts, but you'll still get weirdos thinking it's the best thing they've ever seen.

#14 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@jeust said:

A person has the free will to choose a goal and choose the way to approach it.

A.) How do we know this?

B.) Haven't scientists programmed the very basic ability to learn in robots? That they can know take information from their environment and make some kind of decision based on that information? (There's a bit more to it than that, but that's probably the best that I can explain.)

#15 Posted by jaycrockett (470 posts) -

@jeust said:

Because a machine as of now is programmed to have an array of responses to a given stimuli.

You think humans aren't programmed to have an array of responses to a given to a given stimuli? You think there is some magic force causing your neurons to disobey the laws of physics?

I agree with your "as of now" statement, I just don't think there's any reason to think that can't change in the future.

#16 Edited by Demmetje (202 posts) -

I think when we would task a robot with creating something artlike, it could definitely be called art. That's the beauty of it, there is something interesting about something artistic that is not produced by humans. Nowadays there are few people who contend that Warhol's machine-produced works aren't art, so I don't see why this couldn't be considered art.

#17 Edited by Itwongo (1217 posts) -

Yes, given enough time for systems to develop and improve. We evolved, why wouldn't they?

#18 Posted by Random45 (1240 posts) -

I voted no, but the more I think of it I guess I would change my answer to yes.

If people can view splashes of paint as 'art', then I'm sure these same people will find some pretentious meaning in something a robot creates.

#19 Posted by Nhoj_Sllew (180 posts) -

not on purpose it won't

#20 Posted by ThePhantomStranger (377 posts) -

I think you could probably manage it in the here and now to be honest.

#21 Edited by EXTomar (4863 posts) -

I don't see why not but I will suspect it will happen more as an accept than someone specifically designing some robot to create art.

#22 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4856 posts) -

No. A robot cannot create art.

A sentient machine on the other hand, maybe. We've never seen one of those, however; we just write about them.

#23 Edited by Jeust (10768 posts) -

@video_game_king said:

@jeust said:

A person has the free will to choose a goal and choose the way to approach it.

A.) How do we know this?

B.) Haven't scientists programmed the very basic ability to learn in robots? That they can know take information from their environment and make some kind of decision based on that information? (There's a bit more to it than that, but that's probably the best that I can explain.)

A) How many times did you wonder your purpose and what you desired? Does you have seen any machine wonder about those subjects?

B) Even then it is programmed. It is doing something it was programmed for. Call me quaint, but I believe art is born from the difference of perspective between the artist and the audience? it is born from subjectiveness rather than impartial objectivity, independent of processing power. It isn't a measure of capacity but of individuality.

#24 Edited by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@jeust said:

A) How many times did you wonder your purpose and what you desired? Does you have seen any machine wonder about those subjects?

B) Even then it is programmed. It is doing something it was programmed for. Call me quaint, but I believe art is born from the difference of perspective between the artist and the audience? it is born from subjectiveness rather than impartial objectivity, independent of processing power. It isn't a measure of capacity but of individuality.

A) It's hard to see a machine think, just as it's hard to see a person think.

B) Why can't machines have subjectivity and individuality? Random number generators exist; from that, we could necessarily create individuality.

#25 Posted by TheManWithNoPlan (5823 posts) -

Computers will eventually take over the world of art.

#26 Posted by davidwitten22 (1708 posts) -

@jeust said:

A) How many times did you wonder your purpose and what you desired? Does you have seen any machine wonder about those subjects?

B) Even then it is programmed. It is doing something it was programmed for. Call me quaint, but I believe art is born from the difference of perspective between the artist and the audience? it is born from subjectiveness rather than impartial objectivity, independent of processing power. It isn't a measure of capacity but of individuality.

A) It's hard to see a machine think, just as it's hard to see a person think.

B) Why can't machines have subjectivity and individuality? Random number generators exist; from that, we could necessarily create individuality.

Dear lord Video Game King, every thread doesn't have to become an argument about semantics. Machines are distinctly programmed to act rationally (something humans have been proven not to always do), and they are bound by a set of rules. Humans are bound by rules such as physics and physical limitations and all that, but they aren't bound by laws of thought, which is pretty much what this entire thread is about. And RNG is not individuality as there is a limited amount of numbers that can be chosen by a random number generator (as there has to be a limit, otherwise it's possible the RNG could randomly generate a number that would take so long to process that the computer would crash).

But if you want to argue some more about whether humans and computers are the same or not, keep going.

On topic of the actual topic, yeah probably. There's plenty of "acclaimed art" that looks fairly pedestrian to me (and others probably), I don't see why a computer couldn't make something at least equal to the worst acclaimed art.

#27 Posted by Rafaelfc (1385 posts) -

I don't know but a pompous, pretentious "artiste" robot with a french accent would bring a smile to my face.

#28 Posted by jaycrockett (470 posts) -

Human beings are programmed by evolution (genetic mutation and natural selection) and their environment (physical surroundings and other people). I see no reason why similar processes couldn't eventually occur in computer based intelligence.

#29 Edited by Immortal_Guy (125 posts) -

This question is slightly complicated by the question "how much does the the machine have to do for art to be 'written' by the machine?". People can make algorithms to write music right now - but I'd argue that the music you get out is art produced by the person who wrote the program, rather than the computer that ran it. But at what stage does it stop being the work of the author, and start being the work of the "program"?

Also, on an unrelated note, @davidwitten22: You say that an RNG can't simulate individuality because of it's finite limit, but to what extent are humans thoughts infinite? There might only be a finite number of numbers any RNG can generate, but I'm pretty convinced there are only a finite number of thoughts it's possible to have. To put it another way, there's only a finite number of ways you could arrange the atoms in a human brain. A mind-bogglingly huge number, but still a finite number - there's no reason in principle why that level of complexity (or greater) couldn't be encapsulated in a computer.

#30 Edited by Jeust (10768 posts) -

Human beings are programmed by evolution (genetic mutation and natural selection) and their environment (physical surroundings and other people). I see no reason why similar processes couldn't eventually occur in computer based intelligence.

Yes, until now thought in itself has not been found to be limited. You can't say the same about a machine, as it has limitations both by programming and also by conception (man has not attain the capacity to program a virtual consciousness).

#31 Edited by Jeust (10768 posts) -

@davidwitten22 said:

@video_game_king said:

@jeust said:

A) How many times did you wonder your purpose and what you desired? Does you have seen any machine wonder about those subjects?

B) Even then it is programmed. It is doing something it was programmed for. Call me quaint, but I believe art is born from the difference of perspective between the artist and the audience? it is born from subjectiveness rather than impartial objectivity, independent of processing power. It isn't a measure of capacity but of individuality.

A) It's hard to see a machine think, just as it's hard to see a person think.

B) Why can't machines have subjectivity and individuality? Random number generators exist; from that, we could necessarily create individuality.

Dear lord Video Game King, every thread doesn't have to become an argument about semantics. Machines are distinctly programmed to act rationally (something humans have been proven not to always do), and they are bound by a set of rules. Humans are bound by rules such as physics and physical limitations and all that, but they aren't bound by laws of thought, which is pretty much what this entire thread is about. And RNG is not individuality as there is a limited amount of numbers that can be chosen by a random number generator (as there has to be a limit, otherwise it's possible the RNG could randomly generate a number that would take so long to process that the computer would crash).

But if you want to argue some more about whether humans and computers are the same or not, keep going.

On topic of the actual topic, yeah probably. There's plenty of "acclaimed art" that looks fairly pedestrian to me (and others probably), I don't see why a computer couldn't make something at least equal to the worst acclaimed art.

The random number generator is actually called pseudorandom, because a pseudorandom process is a process that appears to be random but is not. Pseudorandom sequences typically exhibit statistical randomness while being generated by an entirely deterministic causal process - a program.

Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandomness

#32 Edited by AlexanderSheen (5043 posts) -

@jeust said:

@video_game_king said:

@jeust said:

Because it would be needed sensibility, the capacity to feel and being struck by a stimuli.

Why can't a machine have any of that?

Because a machine as of now is programmed to have an array of responses to a given stimuli. There is not programmed to feel helpless, or awestruck by anything, it is programmed to under some circunstance work in an array of ways. The term is automatic. It is automatic in its processes. It's precise in its making,

That's probably is why the discovery of virtual inteligence is brought in literature, movies and games as a mistake, an error. Because in its design is limited by human understanding, and designed to be a tool.

Who says we can't program something more sophisticated in the far flung future?

#33 Posted by ripelivejam (4357 posts) -

can robots make fart?

Online
#34 Edited by Itwongo (1217 posts) -

@alexandersheen: especially since the title of this thread gives us the time frame of forever

#35 Edited by Jeust (10768 posts) -

@alexandersheen said:

@jeust said:

@video_game_king said:

@jeust said:

Because it would be needed sensibility, the capacity to feel and being struck by a stimuli.

Why can't a machine have any of that?

Because a machine as of now is programmed to have an array of responses to a given stimuli. There is not programmed to feel helpless, or awestruck by anything, it is programmed to under some circunstance work in an array of ways. The term is automatic. It is automatic in its processes. It's precise in its making,

That's probably is why the discovery of virtual inteligence is brought in literature, movies and games as a mistake, an error. Because in its design is limited by human understanding, and designed to be a tool.

Who says we can't program something more sophisticated in the far flung future?

@itwongo said:

@alexandersheen: especially since the title of this thread gives us the time frame of forever

There isn't an objective answer to this. You can program something more sophisticated but, it is unrealistic believing humanity lasting forever if you believe astronomy, as it is also unrealistic believing something will be one day a reality that there is no basis to it in today's world, that is what is commonly called space magic. No one can say it won't happen, but the change is really low. But it is also true that if you said to a classic greek philosopher there would one day an airplane, he would probably have called you mad.

That's why it is said that the answer to some unsolved mathematical problems lies more in a fortunate find, than in laborious work.

#36 Posted by Herk (193 posts) -

I've seen art galleries with intensely stupid shit being displayed. I also remember reading of a performance artist pissing herself on stage in my hometown, expressing some deep and artsy stuff no doubt.

So yes I think it should be doable.

#37 Posted by theguy (796 posts) -

Based on some of the "acclaimed art" I have already seen I would't be surprised if this has already happened.

#38 Posted by hermes (1543 posts) -

Ever? Yes. Definitely.

We are still far from it, but I can envision a future where a machine with massive knowledge of a medium rules and genre tropes could create an acclaimed work of art. Of course, it would need for the public to be ignorant of that fact at the time of release, since human hubris would make it impossible for them to acknowledge it, even when its indistinguishable; which could be pretty funny.

Imagine the kind of shock it would create for the fans of the next Hunger Games wannabe to discover the author was actually a computer program...

Online
#39 Edited by ShaggE (6572 posts) -

Not on "purpose", maybe, but by the million monkeys approach, I think so. The real question, to me, is whether critics and scholars would ever accept a piece of art created by pure chance as something that deserves to be in the pantheon of human-created works. I'm not even sure I would, and I have a pretty liberal definition of the word "art".

#40 Posted by vikingdeath1 (986 posts) -

If I took my brain and hooked it up to a computer, would I Become a robot?

Can I make art?

#41 Edited by Jeust (10768 posts) -

If I took my brain and hooked it up to a computer, would I Become a robot?

Can I make art?

Technically the source of the creative process would still be a human mind.

#42 Posted by Itwongo (1217 posts) -

@jeust: of course it's not objective, OP's question was asking for a subjective answer. And what do you mean by there being no basis to sapient intelligence?

#43 Posted by Everyones_A_Critic (6305 posts) -

We need to re-animate Roger Ebert to know the true answer.

#44 Posted by hermes (1543 posts) -

@shagge: That is why I think the best scenario is to present the work (or give it to a recognized artist to do it), leave the world fill it with praises, and then reveal the truth. Laughing at the critics faces is not neccesary (but advisable)

Online
#45 Posted by Jeust (10768 posts) -

@itwongo said:

@jeust: of course it's not objective, OP's question was asking for a subjective answer. And what do you mean by there being no basis to sapient intelligence?

There is no basis for artificial sapient intelligence.

#46 Edited by Itwongo (1217 posts) -

@jeust: it's natural sapient intelligence.

Edit: nope, fuck, I guess I'm wrong.

#47 Edited by Jeust (10768 posts) -

@itwongo said:

@jeust: it's natural sapient intelligence.

Not if it is man made. It doesn't follow natural design - natural evolution - it just tries to mimic it.

#48 Edited by Brendan (7846 posts) -

As always, people severely underestimate the far flung future. If the OP was from the year 1900 and saw the present, he'd explode. Can you even imagine where we'll be by say...2500? Thats 5 times the amount of progress I mentioned above. AI will come, and machines will create original things. Its just a matter of time.

#49 Edited by ryanwhom (290 posts) -

Sure. The human condition is a complex pattern but its still just a series of neurons responding to stimuli so it can be mapped. There's nothing we can do that a robot one day wont also be able to do. Though a robot would probably choose not to do a lot of the clown shit that passes for art these days. Im an artist myself but Im not so vain and self absorbed to think what I do takes so much skill a robot twice my intelligence wouldnt be able to produce it. Most concept art is just a composite of derivatives anyway, I could imagine a robot concept artist in the future knocking out thousands of characters a day.

#50 Posted by Atlas (2454 posts) -

Everyone should read Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro.