Zack
99% hot gas
Do you credit the Mona Lisa to da Vinci's parents?
Humans Need Not Apply
- Thread starter Sanguivorant
- Start date
Sanguivorant
Submitter
I can credit the Mona Lisa to the Big Bang theory, as without the phenomenon, time and space would not have operated in the way that it does in order to allow Da Vinci to exist and be able to draw the Mona Lisa. I could go back further than the Big Bang theory, but let us stay secular, and let us not deviate from the topic at hand.
Zack
99% hot gas
I was initially going to use the Big Bang (rather than his parents), but worried it'd make me sound like a smart-ass.
sophie
Break My Heart
Do you credit Primavera to Boticelli's paintbrush? David to Michelangelo's chisel?
When Elvis Andrus makes a spectacular play, do you attribute it to his glove?
Zack
99% hot gas
The difference being that Michelangelo did not tell his chisel what to do, then sit back and watch the chisel do it.
When a choir sings Messiah, do you credit Handel or the choir? When Elvis Andrus makes a spectacular play, do you attribute him or his coaches?
Do you really not see the difference between a paintbrush and a bot? A paintbrush still requires input from a human artist. A paintbrush cannot dip itself into the paint or put that paint to paper without the help of a human.
A bot, however will eventually be capable of creating art without any input from humans. In fact, the bot mentioned in the OP's video already composes music on its own without human input. Why should a programmer be allowed to claim credit for the works the bots he/she programmed when they contributed absolutely nothing to the work itself? Programming a machine is more or less the equivalent of training or instructing a human. So with your reasoning Picasso should not be credited for any of his works, the ones who taught him throughout his life should, since without their "programming" he never would have created what he created.
KevinLancaster
Prince
If you rigged a camera to move and take pictures at random, or at set intervals, would it become an artist?
No because that was still human input that caused it to take that action. The camera is not making any conscious decision as to when or where to take the picture.
We are discussing machines that spontaneously decide, without any commands from a human, to compose music, paint a portrait, or write a bestselling novel. The latter two haven't happened yet but the first one has. In that case, the machine is the composer and to give a human credit for the works it creates is just about as intellectually dishonest has you can get just for the sake of maintaining the illusion that humans are somehow superior to machines.
I'm not sure it matters. We still run into the same problem, economically. Unless people are specifically willing to buy the works of people who generated those works with significant labour, there will not be real employment generated by art creation.
Sure, there will always be a small market of artists who can survive by selling art. But, to sell art, you need to sell to people who have money. The unemployed cabbies, legal secretaries, cashiers, stockboys, bus-drivers, pizza-delivery people won't be buying any art (though they'll likely download pirated copies whenever possible). The people who own the robot cabs, who have LawAssist(TM) aiding their case prep, and who own the grocery stores and pizza places might still buy art.
Art is also like sports, where you have many, many artists who don't get paid for each artist that does get paid. That said, people will likely continue to pay for art, but we also don't care if a specific piece of art is generated by hosts of employed labourers or a handful of software owners. Family Guy uses a 60-piece orchestra for their mood music, but 'mood music orchestra generating' software will put them all out of business and the audience won't care.
Sure, there will always be a small market of artists who can survive by selling art. But, to sell art, you need to sell to people who have money. The unemployed cabbies, legal secretaries, cashiers, stockboys, bus-drivers, pizza-delivery people won't be buying any art (though they'll likely download pirated copies whenever possible). The people who own the robot cabs, who have LawAssist(TM) aiding their case prep, and who own the grocery stores and pizza places might still buy art.
Art is also like sports, where you have many, many artists who don't get paid for each artist that does get paid. That said, people will likely continue to pay for art, but we also don't care if a specific piece of art is generated by hosts of employed labourers or a handful of software owners. Family Guy uses a 60-piece orchestra for their mood music, but 'mood music orchestra generating' software will put them all out of business and the audience won't care.
aelf
Ashen One
If you care about art, you'd probably think that the best way is for the state/public to patronise artists. The free market and art are strange bedfellows at best; most of the time, it's more like the latter is a prostitute for the former.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Yes? We do?
I do think that actually. Art is very much a 'public good' and fits into my workfare suggesting for this looming issue. This is especially true of digital art. Creating a policy model for the state funding of art, so that it's 'good' isn't terrifically easy, but the endgoal is desirable and it's the process we need to work on.
KevinLancaster
Prince
What if it was more complex then? What if it had a mount and was programmed to be able to move, turn, adjust zoom, lighting levels, proportions, and take "interesting" photographs that are similar to those in a database using a method of comparison like Google image search's similar image function? Where does automation end and creativity begin?
Is the example in the OP really spontaneous? Can it decide to create a new style out of nowhere? An actual consistent style without human input, that is different enough for people to find it interesting because it isn't the same as it's past work? Though does it really matter? Loads of people already use autotune for music, even if it makes it sound similar to existing pieces.
Why not both? Why not as many people/beings as possible (as accurately as possible)? Is it really fair for someone to act like they did absolutely everything they achieved completely alone?
Zack
99% hot gas
That's kind of my point, that it's ridiculous to credit only the programmer in such a situation.
KevinLancaster
Prince
Well, Canadians have taught an AI to be unbeatable at a version of poker, and it's coming for terrorists and your blood sugar next.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/K...+unbeatable+poker+program/10712411/story.html
http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/K...+unbeatable+poker+program/10712411/story.html
You're going to have state definitions of what is art, then, probably based on paintings, graphic design, music, etc. This will separate art into "state-sponsored art" and "not art" defined pretty arbitrarily by legislators and court justices. Lawsuits over what is and isn't art and what does and doesn't deserve state funding will happen. Is this acceptable?
No, it's a real potential mess. But, the deliberate funding of creative commons is a seriously beneficial workfare project. It's worth trying to work around what can be corrupted or resented, while still knowing what the endgoal is.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I agree.
I don't only credit Sid Meier and his programming team when Gandhi beats me in Civ. Ingame I mostly credit Gandhi and the choices he "made" to reach the situation we found ourselves in at the end of the game. He might not even be sentient, but I'm mad at him, not at the programming team. The programming team just built the machine and set up the rules - it was the machine itself that I was facing in the game within the confines of the world created by the programmers. They both deserve credit in a completely different sort of way.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Basically they are using brute force for this. Not really at the possibilities of how a human does things. Their intelligence is basically going through billions of bits of information to get the solution.
