--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > How does one 'solve art'? Can that be done? If not, then I doubt we should > worry about AGI muscling us out of that arena.
The same way that humans have solved art, to distinguish good art from bad art. Obviously this is a matter of taste, but if I gave a program lots of examples of what I thought was good art (or music, funny jokes, movies, or whatever), and lots of negative examples, then it should be able to guess my opinion of unseen examples. If I gave you examples of songs that I like and dislike, you could probably guess how I would rate other songs not on the list, even if your musical tastes were different than mine. So if you could do it, why not a machine? I am surprised how little attention has been given to this problem, given the economic incentives, e.g. the Netflix prize, http://www.netflixprize.com/ Suppose instead of guessing how I would rate a movie based on how others have rated it, it guessed by watching the movie? Now there really is no difference between being able to judge the quality of a movie (relative to a particular viewer or audience), and being able to generate high quality movies. This is an AI problem, just like language or vision or robotics. The only difference is that it has not received much attention. If there is an economic incentive and no insurmountable hurdles, then we should expect it to eventually be solved. Of course it's still fun to jam with your friends, even though others may express their creativity by writing programs that generate music. Just like people will still solve Sudoku puzzles by hand even though computers can do it faster. > Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless > > -----Original Message----- > From: Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 18:35:27 > To:singularity@v2.listbox.com > Subject: Re: [singularity] Will AGI make us stupid? > > And what happens when AGI solves art? This seems to be a neglected area, > but > does music really need to be recorded? What if it were possible for a > program > to distinguish good music from bad, or equivalently, create good music? How > could human artists compete with machines that can customize their work for > each individual in real time? > > > My point is, that doesn't matter. > > I know I'll never be as good as Bach, Jimi Hendrix or Dave Brubeck, but I > play the > keyboard anyway... and I compose music anyway too, just because I love to... > > > Art is done for the love of doing it, not just out of the desire to excel... > > And I like listening to my son's musical compositions because HE made them, > not > because I think they're objectively the best in the world... > > And I like playing music together with other people because of the social > communication > and sharing involved ... so I would rather jam with an imperfect human than > with > a better musician who was an emotionless (or alienly emotional) robot... > > I would have less incentive to prove theorems if I could just feed the > statements to > Mathematica and let it prove them for me... > > but I wouldn't have less incentive to improvise on the keyboard if I could > just tell > the computer to improvise for me... > > Psychologically, art feels to me like a different sort of animal... > > But of course, attitudes may vary... > > I plan to upload myself and become transhuman anyway, but maybe the > Ben-version > who stays a mostly-unimproved human will become a full-time musician ;-) ... > > > Hell, with a few thousand years practice, he may even become a good one!!! > > -- Ben G > -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&user_secret=8eb45b07
