AtheisticNonduality

I would say human creativity, when it really exists, is incomparable to anything else. Maybe address the argument I made, and this will be easier.

You're really comparing art to chess? All these comparisons with shoemaking and chess . . . If we use the chess analogy, we can understand why art has not been subsumed by AI but chess has. Chess, while more cognitively taxing than looking at a piece of art, to most humans, uses simple rules which can be programmed as bare dissociated skeletons of logic, just structures without the fleshy depth of the human being's entirety. AI can learn chess easily. AI can learn grammar easily, but it can never write a good story no matter how grammatically correct its shown processing is, simply because it can handle the webs of syntax, the skeletal logic, but does not have all of the lower previously evolved parts of the human being that source the impulsion and emotionality of stories or the higher consciousnesses of human beings which give it higher meanings. It doesn't even have the webbed logic developed to its fullest degrees. AI may study, copy, and paste the traits of stories the programmer humans may consider high quality. It may even use preset, or even actively learning, rules to cut up and reassemble the traits of the given good stories to mimic "creativity" (pseudo-creative technological perversion), but it can never under any circumstances write something actually what would come from a human being with a genius factor that doesn't merely do that . . . It does not matter how advanced it gets; it will have the same limitations; or else it will have to become a real organism and not just a simulation. Exactly.

I didn't want to derail this thread, but we've already been over this, in relative detail actually, elsewhere.

You're really comparing art to shoemaking!???‍♂️

Yes, enjoy your minecraft world Micelangeloesque paintings . . . I would say, that the mental models are superficial.

Exactly. The problem is that most people here are assuming the AI will be a more intelligent line-monkey than a genuine artist's brain and fingers. It will not. Actual aesthetic intelligence (knowing what to create based on its effects you can detect), cognitive intelligence (handling its complexity), and kinesthetic intelligence (the movements, visual precisions and processing of dimensionality, carrying out the aesthetic and cognitive demands exactly rather than relying on a one-dimensional, unintelligent, low-consciousness idiocy to carry out things inexactly) will not be developed to a human degree in these machines. They only can copy a dissociated fragment of the human system, so the results will also be dissociated and fragmented in terms of quality; and they will be merely quantitative presets. To properly replicate a genuine artist, the AI would need to mimic not inexactly but exactly all of the lower human elements sensations, impulses, emotions in addition to what it already has, which is a small amount of symbolic information. It would also need higher consciousness; it would also need actual intelligence. All of that is impossible to replicate artificially at this time or in any nascent one. So the idea of AH, IT'S DEVELOPING SO FAST IT HAS TO REPLACE EVERYTHING is nonsense and overexcitation.

@zurew Oh no, right at the start it brightened and "improved" the Mona Lisa . . .

What is your pro-Bin Laden account of what happened? I feel like if the deaths of thousands of people are to be justified by religious beliefs like the idea that the Quran is the holy word of God, there should be some evidence behind it.

You mean, what if there was some secret cosmic purpose behind 9/11? I think there are secret cosmic purposes and an overarching Purpose behind everything, but I don't know how "genuinely" inspired by God this terrorist was.

It'd be a bit difficult to get all 300 million into the newsroom. Unless you could fit all of them in your head.

@Raptorsin7 The desire to inflict punishment is an inherent and base human drive that lives according to itself. Reading about it being sanctioned by God would be misinterpreted. Somebody reading about this with no outside context will not think, "Yes, if you follow the path of God, good will come naturally, and if you veer off from God, misfortunes will happen because of your own choices." They think, "There is an inside group that is us and an outside group that is them. We will be rewarded. And they---our enemies---will be punished with excruciating fires after they die in eternity." They don't take it metaphorically, as in pertaining to this life's quality based on how connected or disconnected to God you are; they take it literally, as in pertaining to their enemies, the outsiders, the disbelievers, the infidels, being tortured in literal flames for a literally infinite stretch of time by God. Obviously this is not necessarily a positive belief to have.

Well, I just grabbed my copy of the Quran right now to respond. While the Old Testament of the Bible (the Book of Genesis) starts off with the beginning of the world and the first events that ever happened in the cosmos and to humans, the Quran starts off with a prayer to Allah (THE OPENING / al-Fatihah) and then secondly a block of text advocating belief in Allah/Islam and statements of how disbelievers will be punished at a few points. So while the Bible has a good amount of talk about Hell, it in the beginning focuses on the beginning of the world and doesn't jump straightway into the concept of reward versus punishment as it pertains to the religion (this is because Genesis and the Quran were written at different times and places, obviously). In fact, literally the seventh verse on the very first page is: And:

The whole album.

Lol, I am not. Garish and hideous and obscenely meaningless computer-generated nonsense with bright colors to lead people astray like sirens---is not art. Again, not today or in this century will there be a case of AI producing something like a Sistine Chapel ceiling, simply because reaching the complexity of the human brain this way is not practical but theoretical (and not even a good theory, just a bad theory passing for practice).

Neat, not exactly a place I'd want to visit though, because the details are off. You are all very easily impressed. You're also underestimating the complexity of the brains of "Michelangelos" and overestimating the complexity AI researchers will reach proportionally to that.

@zurew All of those images are nonsense, non-stimulating, and even inaccurate. That's not what all those objects or subjects should look or feel like. People aren't understanding that it's completely different and cannot be otherwise. Obviously drum machines have not replaced drummers, in contexts where real drummers are needed, because they don't sound the same and don't have the same effect. That's just a minor comparison. Take a stereotypically real piece of art, like the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel by Michelangelo, and notice that isn't something replicable by AI. Now, maybe it could replicate the Actualized logo (though still there would have to be a human guiding it properly, which could be a job in itself), but, sure, there would be an increasing gap between artists and mere illustrators.

The "bread and circus" criticism could be taken as a compliment. More fuel to help the more (or less) leftist side get support from the young. Also fuck university, fuck the government, fuck the rightists, etc.

Yeah, you wanna see the "Atheistic bear" and the "fire owls" in his journal?

A.I. "art" is pretty bad, even from the advanced programs. So make your work exceptional.

: )

---Jesus, who ended up getting nailed to some beams . . .

We can see his edits. Now we just need everyone promoted to Administrator.

Dualities each make two qualities. One might overshadow the other or be more quantitatively significant (like if there is a large amount of light and a small amount of dark or vice versa), but there are still two qualities. When they're balanced with each other you could call them halves, but if not, you could still call them halves because they're both from a certain imaginable depth infinitely complex and two sides of reality. If you're trying to say joy is more important than love, I'd say both are important as separate sides of reality (first term is joy and second term is love), that both can intermingle and are interrelated (third term, the duality being a triplicity when the two have a gray area), and that there is something which unites them on a deeper level by being both because it is everything (you could call this the fourth term). How That or This or It is divided into Love or Truth or Joy, is insoluble, at least if considerable study and experience and incessant thought is not put into it.