Comment on this one goes out to the arts & humanities

• Spzi@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  That depends on things we don’t know yet. If it can be brute forced (throw loads of computation power, gazillions of try & error, petabytes of data including human opinions), then yes, “lots of work” can be an equivalent.

  If it does not, we have a mystery to solve. Where does this magic come from? It cannot be broken down into data and algorithms, but still emerges in the material world? How? And what is it, if not dependent on knowledge stored in matter?

  On the other hand, how do humans come up with good, meaningful art? Talent Practice. Isn’t that just another equivalent of “lots of work”? This magic depends on many learned data points and acquired algorithms, executed by human brains.

  There also is survivor bias. Millions of people practice art, but only a tiny fraction is recognized as artists (if you ask the magazines and wallets). Would we apply the same measure to computer generated art, or would we expect them to shine in every instance?

  As “good, meaningful art” still lacks a good, meaningful definition, I can see humans moving the goalpost as technology progresses, so that it always remains a human domain. We just like to feel special and have a hard time accepting humiliations like being pushed out of the center of the solar system, or placed on one random planet among billion others, or being just one of many animal species.

  Or maybe we are unique in this case. We’ll probably be wiser in a few decades.

  source

  • poplargrove@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    What does it even mean to bruteforce creating art? Trying all the possible prompts to some image model?

    The approach people take to learning or applying a skill like painting is not bruteforcing, there is actual structure and method to it.

    source

    • Spzi@lemm.ee ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      What does it even mean to bruteforce creating art? Trying all the possible prompts to some image model?

      Doesn’t have to be that random, but can be. Here, I wrote: “throw loads of computation power, gazillions of try & error, petabytes of data including human opinions”.

      The approach people take to learning or applying a skill like painting is not bruteforcing, there is actual structure and method to it.

      Ok, but isn’t that rather an argument that it can eventually be mastered by a machine? They excel at applying structure and method, with far more accuracy (or the precise amount of desired randomness) and speed than we can.

      The idea of brute forcing art comes down to philosophical questions. Do we have some immaterial genie in us, which cannot be seen and described by science, which cannot be recreated by engineers? Engeniers, lol. Is art something which depends on who created it, or does it depend on who views it?

      Either way what I meant is that it is thinkable that more computation power and better algorithms bring machines closer to being art creators, although some humans surely will reject that solely based on them being machines. Time will tell.

      source