All Activity

if ai gains self awearness then it can create art, at present ai doesnt create art, humans create art through ai, its a tool, the same way a camera is a tool, it doesnt create art by itself, at least by what i understad art and artistic expression to be. in my view art is a human construct and we dont even know that ai would make art if it gained self awearness to the point is a totally separte thing from humans. i dont know if its necessary for something to be art that it has to be trying to say something, it will say something to the audience even if the artist doesnt know what it wants to say, we are more than just our selves, the art will be imbued in that something (society, culture, and all that) its in its nature, so to speak. ai "art" is like one step above of saying that a sunset is art, but at least ai is connected to humanity in a very concrete way that wouldnt exist without us (at least on earth).

An interpretation to me is establishing an axiom upon which you then can base a system of logical reasoning. You form your interpretation of what art is, and then you use logic to make assertions based on that interpretation. I don't see how the formation of an opinion can be considered logical. I understand your opinion, and that's fine.

You could say it is subjective, I’d maybe agree with that. Not sure why you don’t think it’s logical. Either way, I think your definition of art is really closer to simply technical skill, which I do not class as art

This is the subjective, non-logical part, and the premise you are operating on. I disagree with this premise. My disagreement is equally subjective. There is no objective interpretation here. Hence, the conversation impasse.

On that score, it’s widely anticipated this sentiment will balloon in coming months: Shtrauchler, btw, was Bibi’s campaign manager in the 2019 elections.

Hmm, interesting. There are some good ideas in the appendices, I particularly like the stuff around the fall of the North. But as you correctly point out there's just not enough text there, you are basically writing your story from scratch (and I feel like that's been done numerous times already on the video game front)

I’d say my position was perfectly logical. If art is the artist expressing their own thoughts or feelings through a medium, which is my interpretation of art, then it would be impossible for an AI to do that unless it is able to independently consciously understand itself or the world. AI at the moment isn’t really close to doing that, it just connects the dots between a lot of data points and gives the appearance of intelligence.

I was originally going with "uniqueness", then I decided to go with "specialness", so my comment applies to this post as well. At any rate, even if we disagree to an extent, I think we understand each other. Good discussion!

For me it's not so much specialness as it might be uniqueness. As others have mentioned, humans are biological robots programmed to be what we are through the haphazard intricacies of our ancestors' survival and evolution. AI has no such incentives as avoiding pain, escaping predators, vying for dominance, acquiring a sexual partner, or finding companionship. They are not wired to be social, or moralistic, in the way that humans are. Maybe that stuff can be simulated, and simulated well. As I said, it's possible. But it's certainly not guaranteed. And I don't think it very likely, at least on its own. The most likely type of art I see coming from AI is the stuff dictated by the needs and desires of humans, who for many weird reasons are primed to seek that shit out.

I never even managed to watch season 4 because I couldn't find it on UK channels. I think it moved to Now TV and I was damned if I was paying for another subscription, no matter how much I love Thandiwe Newton and Evan Rachel Wood

Does it exist in the current ASOIAF timeline?

its not really a sound investment to spend whatever crazy amount they did to acquire the rights/IP and then not leverage the existing characters. You can say the story wasn't to your liking but using the legacy characters makes perfect sense

I think I'm less enamored by the specialness of humans than is typical, so that inclines me more readily to believe that we can be surpassed.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts as to why. Obviously if a human designer is reviewing the outputs and tweaking the inputs accordingly, that's more likely to produce something closer to challenging or transformative art. But that would be more akin to someone using a camera for their own ends. That scenario is less interesting to me, because it's so highly dependent upon human guidance. Are you skeptical of more-or-less unguided AI creating challenging or transformative art? Or still not so much?

Also those leading and organizing demos demanding elections are being arrested.

I agree, though the bolded part is something I find myself less skeptical of than you. I understand you well, I think, I simply did not try to argue the issue with you further. You are insisting on the point that "awareness" is an essential criteria for whether something produced is art. That's fine, but I think the conversation dead ends here. You are entitled to this personal definition of art. It's a subjective standard, so one cannot use logic to change your position, because it is not a position formed by logic. I will continue to assert that this will become an increasingly impractical definition to hold to in the future the closer AI comes to producing - in you words - "technically" superior art.

Mass Effect is certainly more focused on its central narrative, and the central story and narrative is superior to BG3's by a very wide margin (BG3's central storyline is its key weakness, although just about everything else, including the subplots to that narrative, is good to occasionally excellent). I'd also rank the companion characters in ME as being better, but there's also a lot more of them. BG3 does not have a Garrus or anyone on his level, really. In terms of gameplay/freedom, BG3 clearly wins. ME is pretty much on rails and as much as the games try to react to your choices, there are limits to that, shown most clearly in the ending. BG3 allows for much greater latitude and flexibility in how you do things. ME's gameplay is also predominantly third-person cover shooting, whilst BG3 is a proper RPG.

A two-volume Hobbit would likely still have had a lot of iffy scenes to them, but they wouldn't have had time for, for example, weird side-treks to Mt. Gundabad and tons of comic crossdressing scenes with Alfred, as well as the battle would have had to have been shorter, and maybe less or no Smaug/dwarf comic combat. Could Jackson have created three top-tier Hobbit movies out of the one, relatively short book? Maybe if he'd been able to plan for three films from the very start of the process when he and Del Toro were working on it, but I really don't see how. It looks like they tried to basically stealth their way out from making three films and only make two, and that backfired on them. The compressed timeframe for production (the only reason Jackson directed) was also a major problem.

We don't need to find a particular threshold. There's certainly room for discussion about what's art or great art, or trash art, or whatever. But generally, the lower standard one has for art, the easier the bar is for AI to clear. If the goal of art is merely to entertain, then AI is probably making art right now. If the goal of art is to challenge an audience, to provide an insightful perspective, to allow catharsis of difficult emotions, to put the audience in a state of transcendent wonder....well, it's possible, but much more improbable.

It comes from the books, where Giedi Prime is said to be a planet in a low photosynthesis range. It's also unclear what Herbert meant by that, except it sounded cool.

That I hate…

No im questioning the definition of technical quality as art. The wire is an excellently made show. Is it art? If it is, it’s only because it’s trying to say something. Not because it’s technically accomplished. I feel you are getting confused between art and technical skill. They are not the same in my mind.

https://www.thefight-site.com/home/tyson-fury-vs-oleksandr-usyk-the-fight-sight-preview Fury vs Usyk got me to do my first bit of writing since Bloody Elbow went south.

Finished Sugar, which wrapped up its season. I admit, the twist many critics found disruptive... well, I found it disruptive. I feel like if they had made the reveal in the 2nd episode, they could have better fleshed it out. As it was, it largely lost the charm of the meta-commentary clips from old movies, and Sugar was basically flattened as a character.

The first sentence here is wrong. The second sentence was exactly my point a couple responses back. The third is ignorant of the fact Bibi’s coalition is currently gaining in many polls. There’s no point in further responding to arguments that willfully ignore and fundamentally misunderstand the political realities.