Try telling AI to start a new 'school of art'. What is happening is industrial plagiarism, and industrial forgery. It has an empty feel because it is clever copying and there is nothing creative happening. That does not mean it is possible to tell the difference, though. Plagiarism and forgery have long traditions too and can already be hard to impossible to detect. So it goes. Art has survived printing and photography, it will probably survive this. — unenlightened

Forgive me for going off on a tangent, but this makes me think about political issues like the 32 hour work week and universal basic income. At what point are humans just along for the ride while machines do all the real stuff? Would that be a bad thing? I'm retired and I'm as happy as I've ever been. What would human life be like if we never had to work?

Looks like AI has a Kitch sensibility. It all seems like tasteless crap to me. — Janus

There is truth in that, but I'm not sure I would say much different about most of the human-produced graphics I've seen.

it doesn't really seem like AI art has advanced all that much since this year began compared to 2022 — Mr Bee

That seems like a pretty short-sighted view. I can't imagine there won't be significant advancements in the near future. AI as a real thing has only really been out in public for a year or so.

I feel the same way about all things digital. Maybe it’s the medium, or that all of it is largely a string of ones and zeroes, and a portrait of the artist as a person who moves a contraption around on his desk, clicking it every once in a while. Of course artificial intelligence could do that better than a human being, when you think about it. — NOS4A2

I'm still not sure about that.

No. But a lot of artists have day jobs to pay for paints or clay, rent and catfood, and the computers can certainly take that away. — Vera Mont

Yes, I guess there are two sides - the aesthetic one and labor rights one.

I think sufficiently advanced paint by numbers will be indistinguishable from any art humans can create. Human art will change, my guess is it will blend with science and scientists will be the new artists. Once we can do anything, there will be artistry in the choices in how to do it. — DingoJones

I agree with what @Angelo Cannata wrote - "The essence of art is human inner experience that is communicated." It's communication from one person to another. What happens when there is no actual experience being communicated?

I wonder if it primarily appeals to a certain type of male taste. — Tom Storm

If Midjourney allowed it, I'm pretty sure most of the images created would be pornographic.

Mind you, there's a lot of art painted by highly skilled human beings for the market that I experience as empty and device ridden. — Tom Storm

That is what I was thinking about when I wrote "this makes me question my responses to human-created art."

If I sense a vitality and a distinctive point of view in a work, I tend to like it. But this is entirely personal. — Tom Storm

We've talked about what art is and what good art is before. I don't think your standards are unreasonable. In reading fiction or poetry, I judge written works first by whether or not I am moved. With visual art it's harder. I am very easily moved intellectually, so I'm a sucker for something interesting and clever, unexpected and unconventional.

If anyone thinks of metaphysics (in the sense of gaining knowledge of that which is beyond the possibility of all experience) as a legitimate practice, then, I would ask, how can one distinguish it from the human imagination (irregardless of how plausible it may sound)? — Bob Ross

People have lots of ideas about what "metaphysics" is. Our discussions of the subject are always tangled up in disagreements about the meaning of the word. Your definition is certainly not what I mean when I talk about metaphysics. More importantly, I don't think it's consistent with what most other people think it is either.

I think posters, rather than artwork. Of course, I have the same reaction to quite a lot of human-produced graphic art. I see a great deal of overlap between CAD and AI. They are all pretty and very neat; spontaneous human art usually isn't. I quite like some of them. The fantastic houses, I like very much. Also the balloon heads and the deer/camo wallpaper.
But I like Chimpanzee art more. — Vera Mont

I think it's fun and I also like some of what is produced. What bothers me is that the act of creating is very important to me. In my particular case, it deals more with words than with images. When I am creating, putting my thoughts on paper, I feel as close as I ever do to the real me, if you'll allow me that. I assume visual artists feel the same. Can that be taken away?

To an extent yes. I can see it replacing low level artist jobs involving stock photography and simple generic book covers, but nothing on the level of full on comic books just yet. With regards to depicting complicated scenes, scenes with context, and subjects consistently, those are areas where the AI seems to struggle, and given how it's been advancing over these past 2 years I'm doubtful that those issues will be solved in the short to medium term, at least barring the possibility of a sudden technological breakthrough. — Mr Bee

I would like to think you're right.

The essence of art is human inner experience that is communicated. There are many other important aspects, but the essence is the event of communication of an artist’s soul, the artist’s intimate emotions, feelings. — Angelo Cannata

This is an explanation of what makes art art that I find convincing and consistent with my own experience.

The authenticity of art is not in the objective truth about it. The authenticiy of art is the sincere research for the deepest and richest things that we can achieve; even better if we can add truth as much as possible. But truth is not the condition for art to be authentic. I will look for truth with all of my energies and abilities, but what is important is not reaching it or not; what is important is having cultivated a research for the best that we can achieve; so much the better if we can add truth as much as possible, but this is not the essential condition; truth is not the most valuable thing in art. — Angelo Cannata

I don't think I buy this. I have no problem with putting some effort into understanding the visual language, references, symbols, metaphors, history of a work, but at the end, it needs to speak for itself.

These AI art and writing programs are nowhere close to the kind of AI that would represent a threat to humanity, if thats what you mean. — DingoJones

Sure, but the whole process is brand new and seems to be changing very fast. What comes next?

Something else to consider is a human artist using AI like any other tool (pencil, straight edges, paint brush, various canvas types etc) to create works of art they could only imagine doing before. The scope and scale of a project skyrockets with a good AI to handle key components of an overall greater work of art, for example adding a microscopic or very small perspective image so that the paintings primary object has less of that hollowness you mentioned. The observer of the art will be experiencing a richness they cannot even detect with their naked eye. — DingoJones

This brings up a question that has been discussed previously here on the forum - How important is technical mastery in the production of art. I've gone back and forth about it, but at some level it seems clear to me that the technical limits imposed by the form of art are the framework, the superstructure, that artists work with to communicate with their audience. What happens when technical mastery of any sort is no longer needed? It seems to me we're left with little more than paint-by-numbers.

There will still be a need to sift through all the Ai-generated images looking for the best ones. That doesn't require a lot of skill though. If I was a professional artist, I'd be worried. Or I'd sell my paintings with a video of me making the painting included, so there's proof a human did it. — RogueAI

Yes. Your thinking parallels my own, but your solutions seem pretty unsatisfying. I'm sure you feel the same way.

Yes it puts another dent in the industry, but we're accustomed to taking hits. Outsourcing, online templates, crowdsourcing... the devaluation is endless, or rather it's getting much closer to the end. I adopted it right away and it's a useful tool for GD, also for generating subject matter to paint. I prefer to paint from life but having any image that you can instantly generate and view from a monitor is very very handy. It takes time and effort to set up a still-life or find a good landscape or seascape. — praxis

I appreciate the input from an actual visual artist. The closest I come to such expression is in writing, so I often have a hard time imagining how it would be for painters or musicians. I'm really glad I've finished my career so I don't have to figure out how to make it work.

Human or AI? — praxis

For what it's worth, it looks like a lot of the stuff on Midjourney.

First test would be to see if you can tell the difference between AI art and human art. If you cannot, that would imply the “hollowness” exists in your mind and not the artwork. — DingoJones

I'm not sure that's true, although that question is what led me to question the value of some human-created art.

The reason it ignores portions of the prompt used is usually because the latter portions of the prompt are pre-empted by the random generation of previous portions of the prompt. — DingoJones

That makes sense.

Lastly, it is only a matter of time (short time) before most commercial art is AI generated. Book covers and the like are getting easier and easier for AI to get right. — DingoJones

I wonder where there will be room for humanity when it's all over.

At Home in the Universe — Patterner

I've been reading a lot of science lately - switching from my usual fiction. I'll add this to my list. It was written in 1996, do you think it's out of date? Do you know any good, more recent books.

Good, thorough post. Extra point for using "sui generis."

You could create a plethora of equations and none would have any bearing on our existence. — chiknsld

I agree with you, but it has always amazed me how often some obscure phantasmagoric math ends up being useful in the real world.

And if so does it point to a creator ?

Is maths embedded in the universe ?
And if so does it point to a creator ? — simplyG

No and no. As @L'éléphant notes, it is a language made up by humans, although there is evidence that the capacity for numerical thinking is hereditary in humans and perhaps other animals.

Concrete evidence does exist, and when questioning a God why wouldn't you be able to fight for that God with that book. In order to prove science, we don't stop people from using data. — Isaiasb

Actually, I agree with you. I consider the Bible to be evidence for the existence of God. If I were interested, we could discuss whether it is good evidence for God. But that wasn't my point. Whether or not it's fair, using the Bible or other similar religious text as evidence is not considered philosophy here.

I think the major problem with your thesis is that your putting your own beliefs and morals above Gods. God is a wrathful and judgmental God, he desired us to be loving because he will ultimately judge evil not us. God wages a Holy war, unto which we cannot do, so that we can receive rest from Evil. Some of the times we need to trust in God and know he's all-knowing. — Isaiasb

Many, most, of the people here on the forum believe that the Christian God, or any god for that matter, does not exist. Quoting scripture won't get you anywhere with them. Actually, no argument will get you anywhere other than providing them with solid, concrete proof of his existence. This is a battle that has been fought here and everywhere else where theists meet atheists.

Unfortunately, people will procreate regardless of their inability to parent their children in a psychologically functional/healthy manner. Many people seem to perceive thus treat human procreative ‘rights’ as though they [people] will somehow, in blind anticipation, be innately inclined to sufficiently understand and appropriately nurture our children’s naturally developing minds and needs. — FrankGSterleJr

I'm with @BC here. Children deserve to be protected. I also agree that some sort of parenting teaching in school might be a good idea. On the other hand, looking at the problems there are with sex education, I think there would be serious difficulties in implementation. Child rearing methods come with psychological, moral, and political assumptions and values built in. These days people can't even agree that reading "To Kill a Mockingbird" or learning about Rosa Parks are proper.

I am of the Good Enough Parenting persuasion. Children don't need great parents, they need pretty good parents - people who will provide at least basic levels of protection, security, and attention. I come to this understanding at least partly on the basis of my own experience as a parent. My children are in their 30s and 40s now. I was not a wonderful parent, but they are wonderful. Humans have gotten by without formal training for at least 200,000 years.

I am also of the persuasion that in the great majority of cases, parents are better equipped to raise their children than government is. There is a bond between mothers and fathers and daughters and sons that shocked me when I first felt it myself and shocked me again when I saw it in my own kids.

Agreed. I wasn't suggesting it can't be done. — FrancisRay

But leaving that aside, how can an untestable theory be scientific? Physicalism is an ideological position or guess, not a scientific theory. Even if we discount the fact that it fails in metaphysics and explains nothing there is no scientific reason for endorsing it. For physics it makes no difference whether it is true or false. — FrancisRay

I agree with this, although I think there is a scientific reason of sorts - without an assumption of physicalism, science can't be done. Scientific = measurable (or at least observable) = physical.

That doesn't mean I don't think consciousness experience can be studied scientifically.

Try Damasio's The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness. — wonderer1

Yes. I found some of what he wrote really convincing.

This is a really great post. I agree with a lot of it and don't understand quite a bit, but your general approach is really interesting. Can you point to some sources for your understanding.

As you can see, you've stepped in it a bit. You've picked a subject which is right in middle of one of the forum's five or so favorite unresolvable disagreements - the nature of consciousness. I hope you won't let the discussion be sideswiped off the direction you are headed.

Maybe this is an odd question, but it's one I've thought about a lot for metaphysics in general - where do you make the break between biology and metabiology? I sometimes have a hard time making that distinction with science in general, but it seems to me it is important to do so. For example, as I see it, self-organization and self-catalysis are biological principles, not metabiological ones.

You have a really interesting perspective. I hope you'll hang around here on the forum for a while.

So you're unconscious at the moment? — Patterner

I edited my previous post for clarity.

Thanks! — wonderer1

how flimsy scientific theories of consciousness are — RogueAI

As I noted in my post, I don't have an opinion on the particular positions described in the article, but I don't think scientific theories of consciousness are "flimsy" or "pseudoscience." I won't go any further now - I've had enough of "consciousness" for a while.

Note - I am reopening a thread that has been off the front page for a while. I just saw the article I've linked below and I thought people might be interested. I haven't come to any opinion about it's contents.

Consciousness theory slammed as ‘pseudoscience’ — sparking uproar

A letter, signed by 124 scholars and posted online last week, has caused an uproar in the consciousness research community. It claims that a prominent theory describing what makes someone or something conscious — called the integrated information theory (IIT) — should be labelled “pseudoscience”. Since its publication on 15 September in the preprint repository PsyArXiv, the letter has some researchers arguing over the label and others worried it will increase polarization in a field that has grappled with issues of credibility in the past. — Nature

Opinion | Why I don't believe in God — jorndoe

I think this statement is disingenuous. The reason Cristina doesn't believe in God is that she doesn't believe. I went through a similar process when I was about 15. Before that I volunteered at our local church and acted as an acolyte. I folded programs, lit the candles at the beginning of the service and snuffed them at the end, and helped collect money. At that point we moved to another town and I just dropped my participation and never really thought about it again. There was never any outright rejection, I just stopped. I think most young people who leave the church are probably like that. As long as there isn't any pressure, they never really need to reject belief.

I can think of two reasons why someone would provide the kinds of rationalizations that are included in the OP. 1) Looking back, people look for some reason need to justify their actions or 2) They want to proselytize their disbelief to others because of resentment or anger. Perhaps there is a third 3) Self-aggrandizement - they can feel superior to people who still believe.

Just stop lying about what I wrote and leave me out of this.

↪T Clark seemed to be certain that the researchers took a picture of a YinYang symbol and passed it off as a picture of entangled photons. Perhaps he saw "reference state" and inferred that it was the Taoist symbol. — Gnomon

I did not say that. Ignore my evidence if you want, make up your own fantasies about little fairies dancing on the taiji, but don't misrepresent what I wrote. I always thought you were a little goofy, but I didn't think you were dishonest too.

Interesting. Thanks for the summary. That historical period in Europe is really interesting - everything is going on at once - the 30 year's war, the English civil war, Shakespeare, Newton, the effects of the Protestant Reformation and Guttenberg's printing press, colonization of the world.

The threat is beginning to mushroom. Corrective measures would have to be taken before irreparable harm is done. — Existential Hope

This seems like it describe the whole world right now. I feel like we're in Europe in 1914 just waiting for the pistol shot.

Maybe, maybe not. The 4mm may be measuring the object under scrutiny, or the photographic image produced by the equipment. Some labels would help. — Gnomon

No sense going on any further. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I understand that this might not appear to be relevant to many people, but as the world's largest nation, the path India takes will have an impact on a noteworthy percentage of humanity. Hopefully, it will not lead to unnecessary fragmentation. — Existential Hope

Yes, the US is incredibly parochial and doesn't take much interest in what's up in other countries.

I shall be highly grateful for the views of the honourable members of The Philosophy Forum on this matter. — Existential Hope

I, like @BC, have no personal or political stake in this matter.

There are a few Indian people in my town, most young - in their 30s. When I asked them their thoughts about the renaming of Mumbai, they laughed and told me the people they know still call it "Bombay." Is there a generational or ethnic split between those who want to change the name and those who don't. Do some regions or ethnic groups feel more at home in India than others?

The image isn't the entangled photons. It's an image of a mathematical entity: the wave function. — jgill

No.