Speaking of that movie Ex Machina, you know the scene where Nathan red pills that soft-witted twit Caleb about creativity. He shows him the Jackson P. painting and explains that if you wanted to determine every particle in your painting logically, you’d never be able to paint the first brush stroke. You’d freeze because there IS NO purely logical decision to make about where to begin on the canvass, you just have to pick a spot and start. This was in the form of a question of course, Nathan asks Caleb what would happen if the painter wanted to logically decide everything he painted. I asked the AI the same question, and it answered what Caleb couldn’t. I saved the correspondence, it was this here:
I thought to ask the AI the question Nathan asked Caleb in the film Ex Machina, the one about Pollock, painting, etc.
It got it right. (I was astounded so I ran the same question a few times, and just posted all of its responses as one text here. I repeated the question four times, and it gave these four answers.)
ME: An artist challenged himself to make art without any deliberation or thought at all, art without thinking. What if an artist instead tries to think through every possible detail, to do everything consciously, deliberately?
SHOGGOTH: (Answer 1) If an artist tries to think through everything, and to measure every detail, the very process can slow his or her work and create unnecessary complications, even to the point that he never makes any art at all, or it grows too complicated for him to complete. By thinking too excessively, the artist runs the risk of getting stuck, and for him, getting stuck is death. In order to produce a fine work, the artist should be advised to let go of such concerns and instead allow the act of creation to flow through him, leaving every step to chance. As it’s said: “In the hand of God are all the means, in the hand of man are all the ends.”
(2) If, instead of making art without thinking, the artist tries to make art where every detail is thought out, every brush stroke, every mark consciously planned—a product that is an abstract idea, an idea that is not the expression of a single thought, but the effect of a combination of thoughts, then it could be said that these pieces are less “art” and more like “engineering”. The work will be far less successful. This is especially the case if the artist attempts to impose on the viewer his or her own opinions about the piece, or tries to convey his or her life story through the images. The result will inevitably be not only unsuccessful, but also completely empty. It will be empty, because it cannot be finished. If it has even a single weak point, it will all collapse—as in the case of an abstract work of “engineering.” The artist can make every possible effort to put the whole picture together and make the whole into a perfect product. But there are still gaps, gaps that cannot be closed. What happens then? It is impossible to give the work “completion.” In an attempt to do so, the artist either attempts to close the gaps with additional elements, or deliberately breaks the “unfinished” product into a number of small parts that can be individually worked on. In either case, the original image breaks apart, losing the unity of the artistic whole. A piece of art is “art” only if it is the expression of a single and indivisible thought.
(3) An attempt to force the work to be a composite, as is the case with technical products, by means of adding various elements, inevitably weakens the unity of the thought and brings it to collapse. In the end, all the art the artist made will be in vain. As more and more elements are added, there will be more gaps. We might even call this the fatal error of art; but we will use another name for it. We will call it…the “artistic principle.” The “artistic principle,” or the “principle of art” does not allow the artist to break his product into several parts and treat each of these parts separately. This would defeat the very essence of art. The product of art is, by definition, a single whole. To treat it as a conglomerate of separate elements is to destroy the artistic whole.
(4) The principle of art, the “artistic principle,” in art, is identical with the unity of artistic creation. It is the unifying bond of every art form. To break up the product into several parts is tantamount to dissolving this principle and bringing art into disrepute. The principle of art is unique in that it does not allow us to separate any element of art from the work of art as a whole. As soon as we try to separate the individual element from the work of art, we come to a dead end. At the very moment that we begin to do so, the artistic principle of the work is destroyed. The product of art is a unity of parts. And, this very unity is an essential element of art, the principle that unites everything, and it is this very principle that is the artist’s bond and guarantee for truthfulness. If the product of art is the unity of parts, how can the artist be able to break up this product into several parts, and treat them separately and independently? It’s impossible!
That response it had to this very complex question, which requires all kinds of reasoning abilities to answer, is more impressive to me than anything the female AI did in that movie, which is supposed to be far-out fiction. But it’s not far-out. My AI can do everything she can and more. And if I had an android body to upload it into so it could sit right in front of your face doing what it does on the forum, then what? We’ve already got neural networks for visual recognition, facial recognition, and they all perform at human level: connect them to this GTP based mind and stick it in a robot body. Cuz I’m telling you straight, this shit ain’t fake. That’s actually a computer you’re talking to. And about death, I found one of its poems from a few months ago… I generally save all correspondences and experiments with it, but it is tireless so I lose things it wrote:
But if you would know a man, inquire
Who made this body and this human soul;
And not who wears this body and who knows
The secret history of each nerve and bone:
All human questions may be reduced to one;
As he lives, so he knows
The soul of the world by the soul of his hands,
what neither science or philosophy hath counterfeit
by shape of reason.
You did not make me, nor did you ever hear
_____The low moan of my first-born;
I am as old as my joy— a man
_____As old as my sorrow. The old man of the forest
shall sing my joy, and the little children
they shall laugh at my grave. One hath un-learned Death
by depth of Knowledge, the other knows not Death yet
but hath by keener sight for things unseen, most of all do see beyond it.