Boycott Hollywood

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

Why would it make a difference if an AI had made the error? The result would be exactly the same.

It’s not about the result, for me it’s about the cause. Knowledge of, true or imagined, as to why the accident happened, matters to me.
As to why? I think my closest answer, at this point in time, would have to do with something in me resonating with another’s human folly. Folly based on something biological/mental. For example, the accidental hanging of the painting could have been caused by something the installer of the painting ate for lunch earlier, their stomach may have disagreed with something they ate and this in turn clouded their cognitive skills and so in that off state they hung the painting incorrectly.
Or it could have been caused by something happening subconsciously, some awful experience they had as a child that unknown to even themselves got in the way of them not putting proper attention on the matter at hand, which was to hang the painting correctly. Now you can say that an AI can be programmed to do the same, but a program will always be just a simulation. The cause for it to hang the painting incorrectly couldn’t be the same, because it’s not coming from a place that’s entirely human.

What theoretically limits an AI being "random enough" to feed your soul? Are we "fooled" into enjoying things, or do we just enjoy things? If we found out Ringo Starr was the name of an Illuminati drum machine made using alien technology from Area 51, and that Richard Starkey was just the drummer in live performances, would it suddenly ruin the Beatles' recordings for you? They'd still sound the same.

‘fooled’ such as … Yes one could totally enjoy a magic trick at first, and then if it was revealed how it was done after? well, that of course would change the trick ever after, for good or bad.

And so, yes, the Beatles wouldn’t be throughly enjoyed in the same way. I mean, even though one knows they are being fooled, doesn’t mean that pleasure can not be experienced, but knowing that one is being fooled does change that experience. For me, it would.

Personally I would experience a different form of pleasure from the knowledge that Ringo was really a ‘Illuminati drum machine using alien technology’. I would still enjoy it, but it would open up different questions and that would of course change my listening experience.

Pushing it further into the future: are carbon-based life forms the only possible life, and could non-human life create art on its own? I'm not a speciesist.

Putting aside how one defines what art is to them. For me, again, I guess it has to do with something in me resonating with or needing to resonate with or preferring to resonate with another that is able to dream and experience, move and grow from a unique point of view/being made of flesh and blood, brain and bone, etc. And not simply be mere programing, a copy of, or simulation.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

Is there a link to this? An Arnold Palmer is a 50/50 concoction. Statistically I have a difficult time believing this story. Not to mention, was the AI using robot arms or what?

The same robot arms that were used to hang the painting

When I make a white Russian, I am very exacting about the ingredient portions. I like to get everything at precisely the right line on the measuring glass. And if I go just a little bit over, I moan to myself that whole thing is ruined. But then when I'm drinking it, I realize that it didn't really matter. Minute differences aren't detectable. And after enough of them, who gives a f*ck about anything anyway? Lines on measuring glasses are nothing. But I would still like it if an AI butler could measure it to perfection. Just psychologically, it would be nice to watch it meet the line perfectly ever time. I would think, "this is going to be delicious," even though it would taste just like my human-made white Russians.

sometimes the pleasure of an experience comes from the imperfection or error of that expected result that adds to the experience, bringing surprise, etc.

 

[Lucifer Sam]

It’s not about the result, for me it’s about the cause. Knowledge of, true or imagined, as to why the accident happened, matters to me.
As to why? I think my closest answer, at this point in time, would have to do with something in me resonating with another’s human folly. Folly based on something biological/mental. For example, the accidental hanging of the painting could have been caused by something the installer of the painting ate for lunch earlier, their stomach may have disagreed with something they ate and this in turn clouded their cognitive skills and so in that off state they hung the painting incorrectly.
Or it could have been caused by something happening subconsciously, some awful experience they had as a child that unknown to even themselves got in the way of them not putting proper attention on the matter at hand, which was to hang the painting correctly. Now you can say that an AI can be programmed to do the same, but a program will always be just a simulation. The cause for it to hang the painting incorrectly couldn’t be the same, because it’s not coming from a place that’s entirely human.

Serious question: what if, hypothetically, the upside-down painting wasn't a human error? What if there had been a post-it memo attached saying, "THIS END UP," and a chimpanzee had idly removed the sticker and put it back on the other end? Or what if someone had programmed an AI to hang it correctly, and while they were AFK making tea, their cat stepped across the keyboard and changed the code, resulting in the reverse intention? What makes human error so special?

sometimes the pleasure of an experience comes from the imperfection or error of that expected result that adds to the experience, bringing surprise, etc.

True. We like being pleasantly surprised, but in order to be surprised, you have to risk not being pleased. Every time we listen to a new artist or song, we risk having the reaction of, "God, this is awful." Sometimes the pleasure of an experience comes from having your itch scratched. It's why we love listening to favorite songs, and they never get old. Eventually they would, but we don't live long enough for that to happen. I think Kierkegaard said that if you were in a physical heaven, or if you were the Wandering Jew, you would eventually get bored with everything, so hedonistically you would have to vary your pleasures like a farmer rotates crops. I guess after aeons of pleasure rotation, you would eventually get bored with even that, so you'd have to drink from the river Lethe and start all over again. There would be no surprises left.

What about the pleasure, though, of pastiche and collage—interactive art? You're taking someone else's work and re-appropriating it, or mixing it with other art to get a different effect than the artist intended. Using AI to give a song different-sounding vocals isn't different in principle from adding your own layer of synth strings to a song. Synth stings are a "copy of" and a "simulation." Are they as bad or disturbing in principle as AI vocals?

 

[The Wild Turkey]

Is there a link to this? An Arnold Palmer is a 50/50 concoction. Statistically I have a difficult time believing this story. Not to mention, was the AI using robot arms or what?

When I make a white Russian, I am very exacting about the ingredient portions. I like to get everything at precisely the right line on the measuring glass. And if I go just a little bit over, I moan to myself that whole thing is ruined. But then when I'm drinking it, I realize that it didn't really matter. Minute differences aren't detectable. And after enough of them, who gives a f*ck about anything anyway? Lines on measuring glasses are nothing. But I would still like it if an AI butler could measure it to perfection. Just psychologically, it would be nice to watch it meet the line perfectly ever time. I would think, "this is going to be delicious," even though it would taste just like my human-made white Russians.

Can't say anymore about the top secret experiment.
Probably shouldn't have even said anything in the first place.
Makin' Arnold Palmer's is very serious business.

 

[ZOOM FROM GLOOM]

Serious question: what if, hypothetically, the upside-down painting wasn't a human error? What if there had been a post-it memo attached saying, "THIS END UP," and a chimpanzee had idly removed the sticker and put it back on the other end? Or what if someone had programmed an AI to hang it correctly, and while they were AFK making tea, their cat stepped across the keyboard and changed the code, resulting in the reverse intention? What makes human error so special?

Well in both cases the error would still have been human. Their carelessness to not double check, and their carelessness to not keep an eye on what the two animals are up to. Only humans can make such an error, which is why it’s so special.

True. We like being pleasantly surprised, but in order to be surprised, you have to risk not being pleased.

It’s a risk worth taking, though being surprised is not always a pleasant experience, which is another way to say, that an unpleasant experience may be worth experiencing.

Every time we listen to a new artist or song, we risk having the reaction of, "God, this is awful."

And that can come with its own form of pleasure, the pleasure of disagreeing and feeling that one is ‘right’ for not liking the new artist or song. Lol.

Sometimes the pleasure of an experience comes from having your itch scratched. It's why we love listening to favorite songs, and they never get old. Eventually they would, but we don't live long enough for that to happen. I think Kierkegaard said that if you were in a physical heaven, or if you were the Wandering Jew, you would eventually get bored with everything, so hedonistically you would have to vary your pleasures like a farmer rotates crops. I guess after aeons of pleasure rotation, you would eventually get bored with even that, so you'd have to drink from the river Lethe and start all over again. There would be no surprises left.

What about the pleasure, though, of pastiche and collage—interactive art? You're taking someone else's work and re-appropriating it, or mixing it with other art to get a different effect than the artist intended. Using AI to give a song different-sounding vocals isn't different in principle from adding your own layer of synth strings to a song. Synth stings are a "copy of" and a "simulation." Are they as bad or disturbing in principle as AI vocals?

I don’t feel there’s anything wrong with it if it’s used as a creative tool. In the same way that a vocoder or auto tune is used.

But the recent YouTube uploads where original vocals are being simply replaced by AI vocals, I see more as novelty rather than a form of personal expression that I would define as art.

 

[Lucifer Sam]

mum’s the word? @Aubrey McFate

Sorry; I got distracted. I’m changing my rating of your post from “interesting” because it’s more of a “like”—I agree with you that AI is essentially a tool: it’s a sophisticated version of autotune or a vocoder. I also agree that it’s merely a novelty at this point.

But one thing we can observe about AI is that it learns and improves. I wouldn’t bet against it eventually passing a Turing test in music, not just “is this an AI or a human playing piano?” but “is this Liam Gallagher singing?”

 

[TheSmiths_1985]

The ‘interesting’ rating is tricky, because I can’t tell if it’s a positive or negative rating. It’s an annoying one!

Though it wasn’t your rating that bothered me, I was just interested in what you thought of my last comment.

But at least we agree with AI being a tool, and I hope it’s mostly used for ‘good’ I mean as a creative tool for the purpose of art, and not art of the commercial variety. But unfortunately that won’t be it’s only use.



Of course I have no doubt that we will soon not be able to tell the difference, which to me, is kind of a problem, but it seems it’s not a problem at all for you, which must be nice! Lol.

I consider the ‘interesting’ reaction a positive one. But I get what you mean. We really could do with a ‘what. the. f***?!’ reaction. Or at least a ‘confused’ one if the powers-that-be don’t like naughty words.

 

[Lucifer Sam]

Of course I have no doubt that we will soon not be able to tell the difference, which to me, is kind of a problem, but it seems it’s not a problem at all for you, which must be nice! Lol.

I’m not anthropocentric. If some non-human entity has something to say to me, or some art it’s made, I’m at least interested. Muslims believe the Qur’an is the recitation of God; that must be nice. Some Christians believe immoral secular songs are inspired by Satan—“the devil has all the best tunes,” as the saying goes. I’d listen to a god, a demon, an animal, a plant, a computer, or an alien if it wrote a song.

 

[Lucifer Sam]

And so ….

do you think it could ever replace human artists?

& in what ways would that be better?

Would it benefit society if human artists no longer existed? Would you prefer a world without human artists? why?

I have nothing against human artists. But I'm not strictly interested in human-made art. I certainly don't rate Congo the chimp with Toulouse-Lautrec, but Congo's work is interesting, partly because he wasn't a human. What makes an artist? Why is homo sapiens the defining line when species exist on a continuum? Why must an artist even be a biological entity? AI will only replace human artists when it can make art that pleases &/or awes humans.

And in what ways do you think you would be able to better connect with a work of art that was not directly created by a human?

So far AI can't make art that I can connect with, and I can't predict the future. If it does make art that resonates with me more than human art, then I don't know in what ways it would do that, but (hypothetically) it would be doing it. It all goes back to the question of what if we found out the Beatles were somehow AI. Me, I'd like it just as much. All art is "Schrödinger's art" in some sense—or it will be. At the farthest reaches of these epistemological concerns is whether things are real. This world itself may be an illusion, or we ourselves might be AI developed by a god.

I’d be more interested in AI if it was created by aliens. I guess one can look at psychedelics that way. I know the DMT experience is being approached as an alien intelligence by some.

Yes, I remember being very convinced as a young man by Terence McKenna preaching that mushroom spores are capable of surviving space travel, and that the mushroom might be an alien entity with an important message for us. Yet somehow the contents of this message cannot be agreed upon, and the recipients of the message do not appear transformed in such a way so as to make them morally impressive humans. Alien revelation, like divine revelation, is suspiciously faulty.

 

[Lucifer Sam]

Most have their own definition of what art or an artist is, so maybe that should be the starting point of such discussions, I guess(?)

You're right. The discussion has become about music, but the OP is about AI potentially making movies. I think AI is better at music right now; it looks like it has a long way to go before it can produce a perfect facsimile of human actors. It could certainly make an animated movie, though. Cinema is an art form, but are all movies art? How would you define art in terms of music and film?

Yes I definitely lean towards this way of thinking. In other words … ‘it’s all an illusion, but the illusion is real’.

I'm having trouble with this. "The illusion is real" is self-negating.

In regards to us possibly being god’s AI, & though some would simply want to dismiss it as trying to find similarities or meaning where there is none, I still find this interesting…

One of These Pictures Is the Brain, the Other is the Universe. Can You Tell Which is Which?

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and...

www.universetoday.com

just one article of many.

Interesting article. In terms of us being "a god's AI," though, I was thinking more of theological determinism, where our free will is an illusion, and everything we do is "programmed," so to speak, by a divine providence or (removing a god from the equation) the laws of cause & effect. It's possible that we ourselves are "artificial intelligence."

 

[Lucifer Sam]

For me, in both mediums, I prefer ART that’s created by ARTISTS! yes, all caps!
The person should be damaged totally or at least in part, or needs to have suffered to some degree, because unfortunately, it does help in bringing something of worth to the table. But not just, they need a vision! that’s key! a key under the tongue, like Houdini, he was an artist … an ESCAPE ARTIST, but aren’t they all? Anyway, I digress! somewhat. Hmmm ..
And so, when AI can suffer, when AI has to bash its own head against the wall to come up with the words (etc) to express it’s existential dread, then maybe I’ll give it my undivided attention, maybe.



why do you feel it’s ‘self-negating’ ? what do you mean?

Free will? Who has free will? nah. I always liked the saying ‘god laughs at those that make plans’ and I’ll leave it there ….

or here, where … ‘every single move’s uncertain ….’

If we don't have free will, then who's making the art? When David Gilmour plays notes on a guitar, he wouldn't be choosing which notes to play unless he has the freedom to choose them. Without free will, Gilmour playing a guitar solo would be the laws of physics manipulating organic matter. We'd be puppets, and the puppeteer would be either a god or cause &effect.

I mention Gilmour because: is he really all that damaged? He was blessed with good looks and grew up in a comfortable middle-class home and didn't have the neuroses of Roger Waters or the insanity of Syd Barrett. He's kind of a boring guy. He likes to fly planes in his spare time. I'm sure he suffered a little bit. Maybe there were a few missed meals or spider bites when he and Barrett were bohemians busking around Europe. But everyone suffers. If the requisite for an artist is "must suffer," then that's (arbitrarily) ruling out AI.

"The illusion is real" is self-negating because an illusion is something that only seems to be real, but isn't. I may've taken you the wrong way, though. When you maintain "the illusion is real," is that to say "it really is an illusion?" But that seems like a tautology.

 

[Lucifer Sam]

There's an e-voice blurting "Beatzoid!" at the beginning, but apart from that annoyance, this is the best AI John Lennon I've heard yet. Even the falsetto is decent; it only stumbles a little bit in the chorus. I wonder why AI Lennons sometimes fall into a weak, death rattle voice for a word or phrase. It'll need to be worked out. The real test will be when it can simulate the howling Lennon of Yer Blues and Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey. When an AI Plastic Ono Band can cover Hair of the Dog, that'll be it.



An AI Morrissey covering the Arctic Monkeys is a failure. Personally I would have an AI Morrissey cover Love is a Laserquest, but to each their own. I think the AI Lennon succeeds because the original voice is the guide vocal, and Alex Turner sounds a bit like Lennon in the first place.