|
|
|
|
|
by philhartmanonic
3672 days ago
|
|
I don't know about that. The whole idea of "having a soul" is so nebulous that it's hard to build a view on top of it. Do we have souls? If yes, is it possible to mechanically replicate a soul? If not, why not? What's a soul? If instead you define art as the communication of things that can't be fully expressed by direct sterile language, that's something I can get behind. Going that route, I think that getting AI to create real art has some pretty clear challenges, but there are also ways whers I could see it being better than humans. Depending on how the AI learns and analyzes it has a chance to have a unique perspective on human communication. From there, it can find new and innovative ways of identifying gaps between primal human experiences and sterile human communication - and with a unique understanding of human communication could come up with fascinating ways of bridging those gaps. This is all spitballing, but I think AI could eventually be the main new frontier in art. |
|
>If instead you define art as the communication of things that can't be fully expressed by direct sterile language
Reading this, the first thing I thought of was emotion, feeling! So much of that is wrapped up in who we are, in what we are, in our experiences, and in our limitations.
I like spitballing --- and the thought exercise follows:
Lets say tomorrow we have AI, real thinking machines, with the classic 3 laws of Asimov. Lets also assume we have a few of them. Because of what and who they are, is it possible that AI generates something that other AI's consider "art" but that we, as people, do not?