One of the things that intrigue me about AI (and I forgot to add this on the text), is those stupid "CONFIRM YOU'RE NOT A ROBOTt" messages that now and then appear when you try to access some webpage. And then, to prove that "you're not a robot", you're supposed to do a stupid, very robotic captcha test or quiz. Are bots incapable of identifying, say, cars or planes or mountains, or of typing letters and numbers? It seems very silly to me, and it shows that AI is not as advanced as they hype it, if bots can't even pass those stupid tests, and if webpages cannot in a more automatic and less intrusive manner determine that "you're not a robot".
So much we agree about AI. Its function as a translator or transcriber on YT videos is what I value most. It augments my understanding of what's being said. My hearing not being what it was, it's appreciated and I notice its lack on other platforms that can't afford it. Same thing in movies and tv w/ or w/o subtitles.
My only disagreement in your assessment is about conscience being the foundation of intelligence. When you first wrote it, I thought you meant consciousness. But then you repeated it; so apparently it's your philosophical stance. I think consciousness or awareness precedes conscience. I also believe conscience is more learned than innate and would point to the epidemic of virtue signalling among liberals as an evident outgrowth of a false, conditioned conscience.
The impact of AI on aesthetics in problematic. When we spot it, we feel it and deplore it. But I had cases recently where I didn't spot it at first. When it was pointed out I felt tricked and reacted according to my conscience leading to moral actions on my part: warning others and supporting the source of my enlightenment. Conscience is important, but reading reality comes first. I think.
I actually meant both. I updated the text to make it more clear. English is not my native language and sometimes I make mistakes... Consciousness and conscience are actually the same word in Spanish (conciencia), ergo the confusion.
Regarding AI in Art, isn't it in the end a result of the programmer and the algorithms and the database put into it? So it is a human process in some way, even if the result is somewhat random because the choice is not direct. I've seen the AI Rembrandt, and I'm not impressed. Technically well done, I suppose, but it's not a Rembrandt and it's not even art, as I understand it.
All art used to be pure: words on a blank page, paint on a blank canvas, form on a formless block of material, even images on an untreated piece of film, as long as the renderings were not mediated by computerized or digital processes. But now most art involves technology as does life in general. Your point that a human's intention is behind even completely AI generated art is true and that's what the one photographer said in his defense when I confronted him w/ his deception - an image of a beautiful woman posted on a page devoted to pre-Raphaelite art.
What you were saying about self deception as being intrinsically human... so worth pondering. We like it when we do it to ourselves and don't consider it delusion. But we hate it when it's done to us.
I guess transparency is important. Knowing the process involved in creating the images would help eliminate accusations of duplicity, but it would also probably destroy the power of the illusion the artist is attempting to create.
One of the things that intrigue me about AI (and I forgot to add this on the text), is those stupid "CONFIRM YOU'RE NOT A ROBOTt" messages that now and then appear when you try to access some webpage. And then, to prove that "you're not a robot", you're supposed to do a stupid, very robotic captcha test or quiz. Are bots incapable of identifying, say, cars or planes or mountains, or of typing letters and numbers? It seems very silly to me, and it shows that AI is not as advanced as they hype it, if bots can't even pass those stupid tests, and if webpages cannot in a more automatic and less intrusive manner determine that "you're not a robot".
So much we agree about AI. Its function as a translator or transcriber on YT videos is what I value most. It augments my understanding of what's being said. My hearing not being what it was, it's appreciated and I notice its lack on other platforms that can't afford it. Same thing in movies and tv w/ or w/o subtitles.
My only disagreement in your assessment is about conscience being the foundation of intelligence. When you first wrote it, I thought you meant consciousness. But then you repeated it; so apparently it's your philosophical stance. I think consciousness or awareness precedes conscience. I also believe conscience is more learned than innate and would point to the epidemic of virtue signalling among liberals as an evident outgrowth of a false, conditioned conscience.
The impact of AI on aesthetics in problematic. When we spot it, we feel it and deplore it. But I had cases recently where I didn't spot it at first. When it was pointed out I felt tricked and reacted according to my conscience leading to moral actions on my part: warning others and supporting the source of my enlightenment. Conscience is important, but reading reality comes first. I think.
I actually meant both. I updated the text to make it more clear. English is not my native language and sometimes I make mistakes... Consciousness and conscience are actually the same word in Spanish (conciencia), ergo the confusion.
Regarding AI in Art, isn't it in the end a result of the programmer and the algorithms and the database put into it? So it is a human process in some way, even if the result is somewhat random because the choice is not direct. I've seen the AI Rembrandt, and I'm not impressed. Technically well done, I suppose, but it's not a Rembrandt and it's not even art, as I understand it.
All art used to be pure: words on a blank page, paint on a blank canvas, form on a formless block of material, even images on an untreated piece of film, as long as the renderings were not mediated by computerized or digital processes. But now most art involves technology as does life in general. Your point that a human's intention is behind even completely AI generated art is true and that's what the one photographer said in his defense when I confronted him w/ his deception - an image of a beautiful woman posted on a page devoted to pre-Raphaelite art.
What you were saying about self deception as being intrinsically human... so worth pondering. We like it when we do it to ourselves and don't consider it delusion. But we hate it when it's done to us.
I guess transparency is important. Knowing the process involved in creating the images would help eliminate accusations of duplicity, but it would also probably destroy the power of the illusion the artist is attempting to create.