24p is outdated

[Jedi Master]

10 hours ago, JulioD said:

Religion.  Science. Art. It’s all storytelling and making sense of the world

Of these three, only science has consistently and correctly made sense of the world.

[Jedi Master]

2 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

It's very easy to make something where it is impossible to tell how it was made, and so then we don't know whether it's art.

Exactly. Interface a computer to some paint nozzles and point them at a canvas and how would you tell the difference between what the computer produces and a Jackson Pollock painting?

[JulioD]

3 minutes ago, Jedi Master said:

Of these three, only science has consistently and correctly made sense of the world.

I think you missed the point. 

[JulioD]

1 minute ago, Jedi Master said:

Exactly. Interface a computer to some paint nozzles and point them at a canvas and how would you tell the difference between what the computer produces and a Jackson Pollock painting?

Copying. Emulation.  It’s reproducing a well known and celebrated source.  
 

It won’t be the next Jackson Pollock though.  It can only fake something that already exists.  

[Jedi Master]

10 minutes ago, JulioD said:

I think you missed the point. 

I don’t think I did.

[Jedi Master]

9 minutes ago, JulioD said:

Copying. Emulation.  It’s reproducing a well known and celebrated source.  
 

It won’t be the next Jackson Pollock though.  It can only fake something that already exists.  

Depends on your perspective. One could argue that Jackson Pollock copied the techniques used in kindergartens every single day.

And what makes you think works created by computers are restricted to “faking something that already exists”?

[JulioD]

I think it’s pointless arguing about something that you don’t seem to grasp while ignoring other rebuttals. 

[Jedi Master]

1 hour ago, JulioD said:

I think it’s pointless arguing about something that you don’t seem to grasp while ignoring other rebuttals. 

I grasp it just fine. It's the people who think humans are the only privileged entities that can create "art". That's only true if you define art in that very narrow fashion. Trouble is, even if you do, it can be impossible to tell the difference between art created by a human and that created by a machine, so the distinction is pointless and only a matter of semantics.

[JulioD]

You made snide comments saying Jackson Pollock was using the same techniques as children.
 

Your comment says the value of art from an recognised established visual artist is the same as the output of children.  Your test is that they would be the same, a variation of the Turing test. 
 

That says to me you can’t see the difference in Pollocks work vs a child. 
 

Here’s some science. 
 

Children CAN tell the difference. Why would I argue with someone who doesn’t see the difference and nuance when 4 year olds can. The problem is you.

“Three unexpected findings emerged. First, even 4-7-year-olds can distinguish works by artists from superficially similar works by children and animals when there are no labels to guide them. Second, children’s aesthetic responses are not aligned with those of adults: children often chose works labeled child or animal whether or not this label was correct, and sometimes justified their choices by crediting the effort the child or animal had made (e.g., “it’s really good for an elephant”). 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15248372.2015.1014488?journalCode=hjcd20

[kye]

8 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

Right, if we gave a machine learning model only movies, then it would have a limited understanding of anything. But if we gave it a more representative slice of life, similar to what a person takes in, it would have a more human-like understanding of movies. There's no person whose sole experience is "watching billions of movies, and nothing else." We have experiences like going to work, watching a few hundred movies, listening to a few thousand songs, talking to people from different cultures, etc. That was my point about a person's life being a huge collection of prompts.

We can observe more limited ranges of artistic output from groups of people who have fewer diverse experiences as well.

Defining art as being made by a living person does, by definition, make it so that machines cannot produce art. It's not a useful definition though, because

1. It's very easy to make something where it is impossible to tell how it was made, and so then we don't know whether it's art.

2. We now need a new word for things that we would consider art if produced by humans, but was in fact produced by a machine

Perhaps a more useful thing in that case would be for you to explain why art requires a living person, especially taking into account the two points above?

Jaron Lanier wrote an interesting book 10 years ago about our value as training data, called Who Owns the Future. Worth a read for a perspective on how the data we produce for large companies is increasing their economic value.

I don't disagree, but I also believe that learning art is also a process of taking in information (using a broad definition of information) over the course of a lifetime, and creating an output that is based on that information.

I would argue that art is in the perception of the beholder.

I used to write electronic music and was working with a friend on some hypnotic ambient music and we were sitting in silence and listening to the song we were working on when all-of-a-sudden next door locked their car and it gave the "boop-boop" sound, and it fit perfectly with the track.  I mean, perfectly.  We both looked at each other and immediately set out to create a similar sound to put into the song at that point.

I don't expect anyone here to appreciate this because you weren't there, you probably don't like that kind of music, you probably don't think it sounds like art, etc, but in that moment a completely non-creative event created a very aesthetically pleasing result on two listeners engaged in the creation of something that's only purpose was for aesthetic appreciation.
I don't have a good definition of art, but if that isn't art then I would argue that nothing is.

What this means for AI art vs anything else, I have no idea, but from that experience, I don't think that art requires intent during creation to be perceived as such by the audience.  

From a practical point of view though, if an AI generated every possible sequence of 2minute digital sound, the percentage that would be enjoyed by anyone would be so low that it's simply impractical to approach it with anything resembling a brute-force strategy.  

6 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

Of these three, only science has consistently and correctly made sense of the world.

Science does a very poor job of making emotional sense of the experience of life.  Science also does a poor job of making sense of the meaning and morality of life (along with everything else).

It doesn't matter that you see the world in a certain way, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but you actively refuse to acknowledge that anyone else is different to you, or if you do then you just assume them to be wrong.  This is a form of aggressive behaviour, which is why it makes people disagree with you so much.  Even your language in the above uses the word "correct" which implies that everything else is "incorrect" and that anyone who thinks differently to you (which is most people here) are wrong.  This is a great way to make people dislike you.  The more you post, the most I dislike you.  You have a lot of knowledge, but you are needlessly making other people angry - you are not convincing anyone of anything.

As a practical suggestion, I would recommend you speak only from your personal experience, and try not to criticise things you don't like or don't agree with.  If this was a thread about ice cream, and someone said they liked strawberry, no-one would tell them they're wrong for liking strawberry and that the only correct choice is chocolate.  This is basically what you are doing, only you're telling us that we're wrong for wanting film-making to be a certain way.

Film-making is a creative process that is designed to be enjoyed by the audience.  That is a fact.  It CAN be used for factual purposes, but this is obviously not the goal of even the majority of film-making, so to judge it on that basis is ridiculous.  

Please try to adjust your behaviour to be more tolerant of how others see the world.

[kye]

6 minutes ago, kye said:

Science does a very poor job of making emotional sense of the experience of life.  Science also does a poor job of making sense of the meaning and morality of life (along with everything else).

To clarify, in the above I meant that science and everything else does a poor job of making sense of the meaning and morality of life.

Obviously, science does a pretty good job of a lot of things, which is why we're able to chat on the internet about film-making and are not rural farmers lamenting the fact that half our children died before the age of 5.

[Jedi Master]

Just now, kye said:

To clarify, in the above I meant that science and everything else does a poor job of making sense of the meaning and morality of life.

Obviously, science does a pretty good job of a lot of things, which is why we're able to chat on the internet about film-making and are not rural farmers lamenting the fact that half our children died before the age of 5.

When I said "world" I was specifically meaning the physical world. In that specific case, science does a good job of physically describing how the world works. I never said anything about emotionally based things like morality, art, or cinematic frame rates. I'll try to be razor-specific when I post here to make sure my meaning is clear.

14 minutes ago, kye said:

Film-making is a creative process that is designed to be enjoyed by the audience.  That is a fact.  It CAN be used for factual purposes, but this is obviously not the goal of even the majority of film-making, so to judge it on that basis is ridiculous.  

Yes, but I can judge it on any basis I want. That's merely my personal opinion, and others will have opinions that differ. I have no problems with that, but do bristle when people tell me my opinions are wrong as if there's some completely objective measure of what's right and what's wrong. 

It seems that people have very strong opinions on what constitutes art and how it should be viewed by others. I'm fine with the first part, but not the second. I'll interpret art any way I like, and others are free to do so as well. I think it's rather pointless to declare, for example, that art is an exclusively human act. There are many AI art generators online, and I like what some of them produce and dislike the output of others. But to declare that what they produce is not art seems like a stretch. Predictably, people are coming out against AI generated art. Most of what I've read about this seems to be artists being against AI systems training on their images. I, personally, don't see any difference between that and human artists viewing the works of other human artists and creating similar or derivative works. That's been going on for centuries. 

Don't take the fact that I have strong opinions on this stuff to mean that I don't respect the opinions of others, because that would be a misrepresentation of my position.

28 minutes ago, kye said:

The more you post, the most I dislike you.

The forum does have an "ignore" feature. I hope it doesn't come down to that, but it is there if you feel strongly enough about it. For the record, I don't dislike anyone on this forum, even if they have opinions strongly divergent from mine, or even if they dislike me.

[kye]

1 hour ago, Jedi Master said:

It seems that people have very strong opinions on what constitutes art and how it should be viewed by others. I'm fine with the first part, but not the second. I'll interpret art any way I like, and others are free to do so as well. I think it's rather pointless to declare, for example, that art is an exclusively human act. There are many AI art generators online, and I like what some of them produce and dislike the output of others. But to declare that what they produce is not art seems like a stretch. Predictably, people are coming out against AI generated art. Most of what I've read about this seems to be artists being against AI systems training on their images. I, personally, don't see any difference between that and human artists viewing the works of other human artists and creating similar or derivative works. That's been going on for centuries. 

This is all true, but only looks at the creation side.

Without humans to experience it, there is no art.  Or, at least, not any kind of art that has existed so far.  Maybe the robots will love strings of prime numbers or something, who knows.

But this is what I base my comment on - that film-making (and all forms of art) are for human consumption.  Humans are more than rational beings, we are emotional beings, and perhaps more than that too.  So to reduce things down to what is objective is to throw away the entire purpose of art.

Creation without subjectivity is science or engineering, not art.

[ghostwind]

Man, reading this thread tells me we need more artists and less engineers. In the world AND in this thread.

[Clark Nikolai]

3 hours ago, kye said:

I used to write electronic music and was working with a friend on some hypnotic ambient music and we were sitting in silence and listening to the song we were working on when all-of-a-sudden next door locked their car and it gave the "boop-boop" sound, and it fit perfectly with the track.

This is totally in keeping with the circumstances that Brian Eno was in when he invented(discovered?) ambient music.   https://www.openculture.com/2021/03/brian-eno-explains-the-origins-of-ambient-music.html  The sounds from outside became part of the music.

[kye]

3 hours ago, ghostwind said:

Man, reading this thread tells me we need more artists and less engineers. In the world AND in this thread.

I'd settle for people that understand:

• The equipment has a purpose other than to have steadily increasing specifications
• That purpose has very little to do with "reality" (whatever the hell that means**)

**I think we'd also all benefit from knowing a bit more about the human visual system, which (to be frank) is so bizarre that it's a wonder we can see at all, and (also being frank) people seem to demonstrate virtually no understanding of.

[kye]

3 hours ago, Clark Nikolai said:

This is totally in keeping with the circumstances that Brian Eno was in when he invented(discovered?) ambient music.   https://www.openculture.com/2021/03/brian-eno-explains-the-origins-of-ambient-music.html  The sounds from outside became part of the music.

Interesting link - I wasn't really that aware of the history of ambient music.  I guess many people participate in an art form without really understanding the history and foundational concepts.

Thanks for sharing 🙂 

[PannySVHS]

This thread is bloated like a thread about the perfect camera. It is one with some of the most narcistic tone i have ever read, from all sides. After all AI is one of the most narcistic enterprises due to being in the hands of people with an obsession for imperial power over markets and our world.

We seem like people with ten cameras not filming anything they want to share in a whole year. No more rough and ready sketches. I prefer seeing that over perfectly polished generic "content". "Content" in marks for a reason, cough, cough.:)

There has been interesting stuff to read, from many perspectives in this thread. Still, there is a very intense misantrophic spirit in this whole affair, a triumphant attitude.

It's a threat, that Ai is ultimately an instrument to dumbening and controling and ruling over people and exploiting and killing them, if convinient to do so.

If it's turning into a triumphator over people, then only because we allow it to happen.

Art it is not. The "mechanics" of cognition are completely different. Art is indeed connected to human cognition. Anything else is just a mimicry. Some people allow themselves to accept that as art though it beeing only artificial, mimicing art.

We all seem to have gotten a bit triumphant like a misantrophicly acting ai-system. We are pretty good in adapting to bullshit but also the other way around. I vote for the latter.

[Emanuel]

17 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

This thread is bloated like a thread about the perfect camera. It is one with some of the most narcistic tone i have ever read, from all sides.

Well, not all! : P

  

On 12/12/2023 at 3:39 PM, KnightsFan said:

Defining art as being made by a living person does, by definition, make it so that machines cannot produce art. It's not a useful definition though, because

1. It's very easy to make something where it is impossible to tell how it was made, and so then we don't know whether it's art.

2. We now need a new word for things that we would consider art if produced by humans, but was in fact produced by a machine

Perhaps a more useful thing in that case would be for you to explain why art requires a living person, especially taking into account the two points above?

Not risking to be confounded with narcissistic ones... LOL ; )  Seems pretty clear to me : D some other people have already mentioned it: original source, (real) innovation, expression of something from someone to reach a receiver...

 

On 12/12/2023 at 6:23 PM, Jedi Master said:

Of these three, only science has consistently and correctly made sense of the world.

WOW What a bold statement! And are the other ones those to adopt nonsense?! Really?? haha : )

Don't ignore the experience of the other people only 'cause you haven't had it ; ) BTW sometimes something you call or infer not to be a science becomes one when a certain experience of yours certifies it yeah even with and following a scientific method too hard to enumerate on pages like this one... Happened to me today yup t-o-d-a-y, go figure, and no, no alien spaceship abducted me! LMAO :- )

[Emanuel]

On 12/12/2023 at 7:40 AM, JulioD said:

Religion.  Science. Art. It’s all storytelling and making sense of the world.

...which seems more connected between each other ; ) than people tend to think only 'cause some see the world from their own room/planet/universe, whatever they want (without thinking we see them or any -- not English basics LOL : P as lower level!)

Just the experiences of ones don't match everyone's ;- )