Who Needs Picasso?

[Mountain Man]

Much of the degenerate art of the period was part of a reaction to the hyper-idealized Nazi nonsense.
Searching for meaning and purpose was offensive to the Führer when he already has a purpose for your life.
These artists were ground breaking because they were contradicting and opposing the status quo.

AI 'artists' won't be able to do this sort of thing.
To think they can is to misunderstand the nature of art.

Bingo. AI might be able to create a new image, or song, or poem that mimics and combines and iterates different styles and techniques, but there's no intent behind it. No matter how complex AI becomes, it will only ever be a non-feeling machine crunching numbers. Self-awareness is a gift exclusive to those who were created in God's image.

[Trout]

When Isis forbids all art it won't matter anyway.

[Sparko]

When Isis forbids all art it won't matter anyway.

Or Skynet.

[seer]

Then we have this:

Michael Jackson's chimp Bubbles is now an artist and he's about to have an exhibition - with paintings on sale for up to $2,000

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...es-artist.html

41E978BE00000578-4654494-image-a-33_1498833095728.jpg

[Tassman]

They've been doing a lot of this kind of stuff recently, such as having AI compose music, or write movie scripts, or even edit movie trailers, but I still say that these derivative, homogenized works that are "applauded" by critics don't so much speak to how smart AI has become but to how dumb the average population has become.

Well you would know.

Actually the German computer scientist Jürgen Schmidhuber says artificial intelligence will surpass humans’ in 2050, enabling robots to have fun, fall in love, create music and art – and colonise the galaxy.

[Sparko]

Well you would know.

Actually the German computer scientist Jürgen Schmidhuber says artificial intelligence will surpass humans’ in 2050, enabling robots to have fun, fall in love, create music and art – and colonise the galaxy.

so we are going to unleash our robot overlords on the rest of the galaxy. We are the Borg.

[Mountain Man]

Well you would know.

Actually the German computer scientist Jürgen Schmidhuber says artificial intelligence will surpass humans’ in 2050, enabling robots to have fun, fall in love, create music and art – and colonise the galaxy.

Yes, I would know, because I encounter liberals on a daily basis.

As for AI, the idea that it will ever surpass humans (whatever that means) is based on the false premise that we're nothing more than organic computers programmed by evolution rather than beings created in the image of God.

[Mountain Man]

For the sake of argument, suppose AI does "surpass" humanity? What should be its moral obligation towards us? Should it treat us as equals, or should it treat us as an expendable resource, similar to how we treat the lesser animals like cows and horses?

To put it another way, would you prefer the AI to have a Christian worldview, or an atheistic one?

[Sparko]

wait. OK I understand robots wanting to take our jobs, but now they want to take our fun and art too? Are they going to start doing our drugs too? drinking our beer?

feature_drinkingrobot.jpg

Those robots are just too greedy.

They better stay away from my bacon.

[Terraceth]

Well you would know.

Actually the German computer scientist Jürgen Schmidhuber says artificial intelligence will surpass humans’ in 2050, enabling robots to have fun, fall in love, create music and art – and colonise the galaxy.

It's been demonstrated time and time again that people, even scientists, are really bad at predicting technological advances just a few years in the future, let alone decades in the future.

Especially because the leading causes of technological advancement has always been practical application. A Smart Phone, for example, has a practical application: It makes doing a whole lot of things easier. There is, as far as I can tell, not any practical application for robots that can "have fun" or "fall in love" with each other. There is the incentive of doing it just to prove it could be done, but this has two issues: First, it's harder to get funding for that, and second, even if it is accomplished, you've done it; there's little incentive to, after making one such robot, to make a lot more (maybe a few more to see how they interact, but not mass produce). As shown by the fact no one has walked on the moon since 1972, novelty-based technological advancement gets its plug pulled once the novelty wears off.

[Tassman]

As for AI, the idea that it will ever surpass humans (whatever that means) is based on the false premise that we're nothing more than organic computers programmed by evolution rather than beings created in the image of God.

There is no substantive evidence that humans are "beings created in the image of God". And, yes humans are "organic computers programmed by evolution".

For the sake of argument, suppose AI does "surpass" humanity? What should be its moral obligation towards us? Should it treat us as equals, or should it treat us as an expendable resource, similar to how we treat the lesser animals like cows and horses?

To put it another way, would you prefer the AI to have a Christian worldview, or an atheistic one?

It's possible that AI beings will treat us the same way that Christians treated the natives during the era of colonial expansion, i.e. badly. But, hopefully not.

[Tassman]

It's been demonstrated time and time again that people, even scientists, are really bad at predicting technological advances just a few years in the future, let alone decades in the future.

Especially because the leading causes of technological advancement has always been practical application. A Smart Phone, for example, has a practical application: It makes doing a whole lot of things easier. There is, as far as I can tell, not any practical application for robots that can "have fun" or "fall in love" with each other. There is the incentive of doing it just to prove it could be done, but this has two issues: First, it's harder to get funding for that, and second, even if it is accomplished, you've done it; there's little incentive to, after making one such robot, to make a lot more (maybe a few more to see how they interact, but not mass produce). As shown by the fact no one has walked on the moon since 1972, novelty-based technological advancement gets its plug pulled once the novelty wears off.

It will happen in due course, it’s inevitable, and their future development...including the ability to have emotions...will be out of our hands once they become self replicating.

[seer]

And, yes humans are "organic computers programmed by evolution".

So our rationality is programmed by non-rational forces, that is about as plausible as a tornado blowing through a dump and creating a working calculator, or blowing through a thousand dumps and creating a single working calculator.

[Mountain Man]

There is no substantive evidence that humans are "beings created in the image of God".

You know how I know you're an idiot? Because you say ignorant things like that.

And, yes humans are "organic computers programmed by evolution".

It's possible that AI beings will treat us the same way that Christians treated the natives during the era of colonial expansion, i.e. badly. But, hopefully not.

If robots had a Christian worldview then they would have a better chance of recognizing our inherent value and treating us with compassion. If they had an atheist worldview then all bets are off, because they would be justified seeing us as no more inherently valuable than a moth or a cow.

Of course AI will never get to that point, so this is all hypothetical anyway.

[Mountain Man]

So our rationality is programmed by non-rational forces, that is about as plausible as a tornado blowing through a dump and creating a working calculator, or blowing through a thousand dumps and creating a single working calculator.

CS Lewis describes this as "naturalism cutting its own throat".