Of course we can weather the transition. Much like the horse example in the video, our population will decline greatly. Is that really such a bad thing though? Given the strain the ever increasing number of humans is placing on just about everything from the economy to the planet itself, less humans walking around doesn't sound like a huge negative to me.
Humans Need Not Apply
- Thread starter Sanguivorant
- Start date
Of course we can weather the transition. Much like the horse example in the video, our population will decline greatly. Is that really such a bad thing though? Given the strain the ever increasing number of humans is placing on just about everything from the economy to the planet itself, less humans walking around doesn't sound like a huge negative to me.
Sanguivorant
Submitter
Again, it is easy to say you eant the population reduced if you exclude yourself and people you care about from it.
madviking
north american scum
a thread on this video has already come up just fyi
i said it in the other thread, and i'll say it again: any 'art' created by a machine cannot be meaningfully called art.
i said it in the other thread, and i'll say it again: any 'art' created by a machine cannot be meaningfully called art.
That's the only way to think about it though. Doing otherwise adds emotion to the equation and making decisions based on emotion very seldom results in a course of action that is beneficial to humanity as a whole.
madviking said:
Why not?
Kozmos
Jew Detective
Somehow I don't think people having all the free time in the world will result in the best society. I know I'd be doing tons of dumb stuff if I didn't have to provide for myself.
madviking
north american scum
because art is a fundamentally human endeavor
Anything is art - it's just something interpreted by the experiencer. You cannot "instill emotion" into a piece, so a machine-made piece can be identical to a human-made piece. Both can create emotion in the viewer, so they are both art. For that matter, look closely at anything and admire the beauty. Whatever you looked at is art.
Loppan Torkel
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,756
Any pictures that create emotion in the viewer is considered art?
madviking
north american scum
if you ask plato, good art contains some sort of ideal that we as humans are striving to achieve. while a machine could replicate these ideals, it wouldn't be meaningful (hence the qualification in my original statement), as machines aren't humans and aren't subjected to the same sort of experiences.
sure it can be classified as 'art', but, again, the "meaningfully" qualification. you're describing one half of the equation (the end result). but the artist isn't just screwing around when s/he is creating the art. there are aesthetic decisions and techniques and synonyms that require a level of subjectivity that i do not think is replicable in machines.
either way, i would define art as something which derives meaning (an idea not mutually exclusive from plato's definition of art) through framing, colors, etc. of the world. i am skeptical a machine could ever fully grasp these very subtle and important decisions when creating art.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
As opposed to all the dumb stuff we find ourselves doing in an effort to provide for ourselves, you mean?
Kozmos
Jew Detective
Yeah, because we would have more resources. My stupidity increases the more stuff I have to screw around with.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Maybe. But I can't help remembering all the dumb things that I've been obliged to do in the interests of simply making a living for myself. In fact, I've difficulty recalling any things that seemed really useful to me. Most of my paid employment seems to have been a exercise in total futility to me. And much of it actually harmful in one way or another. How much of it would I have done if I hadn't been paid to? Not a lot, I think.
Ah, I've just thought of something: I did take a lot of fruit and vegetables to market at one stage. That was surely a little bit useful.
Ah, I've just thought of something: I did take a lot of fruit and vegetables to market at one stage. That was surely a little bit useful.
Suppose you looked at a piece of art, with no knowledge of the author. I think you would find that half the equation is all that matters, for you as the experiencer. The only difference is the feelings in the artist from creating the art. However, this has little to do with the artwork itself. Any change to the artwork due to the feelings of the author could be similarly done by an unfeeling machine that simply copies the technique or pattern.
There are many examples of AI art online. I would remind you that it's fallacious to judge art based on who created it - rather, it should be judged on it's own merits. I think AI art has more potential for intricacy than human art. I'm not sure why you are skeptical. AIs can find correlations between subtle patterns and rated quality that will teach it many subtleties, so much so that a piece is very moving.
Personally, I find the most visual beauty in nature. As far as human art, I do love man-made music.
sophie
Break My Heart
classical_hero
In whom I trust
All machines will do is make us more productive, which means we can create wealth faster. It is no coincidence that Industrial Revolution allowed us to create wealth like never before and allowed us to get away from general manual labour and low incomes that came from them. Even in the most automated industries right now you have plenty of humans working there just that now the average human is now more productive. As a result of the Industrial Revolution it removed children from the workforce allowing them to be educated. The increased productivity in the Industrial Revolution was the result of machines making work more productive an thus the average worker could get paid more. Humans will always need to apply.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Ah yes. What is that? "Found art", maybe?
Then there was the performance artist who decided to actually use Duchamp's work for its real purpose. I think he got prosecuted for defacing a work of art.
Which is strange.
Though maybe his prosecution was also a work of art.
Sanguivorant
Submitter
The Industrial Revolution, specifically assembly lines, largely reduced the need for physical labour, and even skilled labour, since once the factory was set up, it could outproduce a single human being. People like artisans were most affected by this revolution, because now their skilled work could easily be done by cheap labour, and that is the difference between these two revolutions. The IR effectively decreased a specific market that could be automated, while providing many new jobs in these factories for the poor.
This time, it is different. Eventually, you might be able to run a business with a very small workforce, and that is true today. My dad is an oil engineer. A few decades ago, he worked for a project to expand oilfields, and he told me that it requires hundreds of people to set it up. He says nowadays, you only need 70 individuals operating a computer to do the same thing.
Automation will increase productivity, but for what purpose? Why do I need to cheaply make 1,000 widgets if I can only sell 10 because not enough people have the ability to buy what I am selling? My only option is to give away my widgets for free, otherwise I will have an ever expanding marginal cost without any revenue to account for it.
Here's another topic: If we do get this, "Robotic Revolution", how will the job market look like in this era? Will there even be a job market? How do we divide our resources? How do we convince firms to operate based on the common good other than profit, since that is not what they would be earning with automation? What would a transit into this kind of system look like?
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
I hate self-checkouts. They tend to give you warnings seemingly at random.
