Will machines completely replace all human beings?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby James S Saint » Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:43 am

Tortis wrote:
James S Saint wrote:I define consciousness as the process of remote recognition. If anything can detect, locate, and identify something else then it is aware of, conscious of, and experiencing the presence of that something.


Ok, but then you aren't talking about what other people are talking about when they talk about consciousness.

Actually I am speaking of exactly what they are bantering about. The difference is that I understand of what consciousness is made. But then as I said, everyone prefers to argue. You still haven't given a sufficient definition to use instead.

Tortis wrote:So, you go to Google or MIT or whatever and say "look, I made a conscious machine, it can detect, locate and identify something else". They aren't going to be much impressed, because that isn't what people generally mean by "conscious".

And that is why Turing proposed his "Turing Test". If I built a machine that did exactly what I said and people could not distinguish it from a living being, no one at MIT or Google is going to argue any longer. But then of course, among the masses, arguing never ends.

Tortis wrote:And I tried to explain why that other media (or format as you put it) won't be computation.

Computational or not has nothing to do with it.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby fuse » Fri Dec 23, 2016 12:52 pm

Tortis wrote:Evolution has had 200 million years to develop on what was already a complex system, and all that time the system is becoming more specific.

Is it really credible that the same thing could now be achieved by vacuum tubes, or transistors, reading magnetic coatings, or microscopic bumps and hollows, or punched paper cards, or any number of other materials and technologies you could use? This just seems unscientific to me, irrational.

It certainly makes sense that if artificial consciousness is possible it shouldn't take another 200 million years to create it. Evolution is like trial and error without a memory. Human ingenuity has made quite a lot possible over the past 5 thousand or so years, and particularly in the last 300 of those. If consciousness is the result of neural activity what seems unscientific or irrational about using any combination of vacuum tubes and transistors to accurately model such activity?

Tortis wrote:if we can discover the precise causal mechanisms we may be able to produce consciousness in other media.

That sounds fair. Both people and machines are working on it.
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4598
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Tortis » Fri Dec 23, 2016 2:34 pm

fuse wrote: If consciousness is the result of neural activity what seems unscientific or irrational about using any combination of vacuum tubes and transistors to accurately model such activity?


I'd like to ask you to consider what you mean by "model" here.

A computer could be used to "model" digestion: do you think it would scientific or rational to expect that to result in the consumption, processing and excretion of food?

A computer could be used to "model" Storm Barbara, currently shaking the branches of the trees here: would you expect that modelling to result in strong winds and heavy rain?
User avatar
Tortis
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:57 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby fuse » Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:55 pm

Sure, I get your point. Even so, accurate modeling is itself a powerful thing. And I'm sure we'll proceed with simpler versions before the more complex. That is why it is good to discern more clearly what counts as consciousness and if we can figure out a general theory as to how it arises.
User avatar
fuse
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4598
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:13 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby James S Saint » Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:03 am

Tortis wrote:
fuse wrote: If consciousness is the result of neural activity what seems unscientific or irrational about using any combination of vacuum tubes and transistors to accurately model such activity?


I'd like to ask you to consider what you mean by "model" here.

A computer could be used to "model" digestion: do you think it would scientific or rational to expect that to result in the consumption, processing and excretion of food?

A computer could be used to "model" Storm Barbara, currently shaking the branches of the trees here: would you expect that modelling to result in strong winds and heavy rain?

Those are not valid questions to the issue. They are, in effect, strawmen. You are conflating software with hardware.

• A machine could be a model of digestion and that machine would probably do a better job of digesting than your body would have (else why bother with designing it).

• A machine could be a model of a storm and probably yield more devastating results than a natural storm.

• And a machine could have a program within that is a model of a conscious mind (or even a human mind) and be more conscious than any natural organic life form.

fuse wrote:That is why it is good to discern more clearly what counts as consciousness and if we can figure out a general theory as to how it arises.

"We" already know how it arises and it is already being done. The only problem is that in the "we vs them" issue, you are not "we".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Tortis » Sat Dec 24, 2016 12:07 pm

James S Saint wrote:• A machine could be a model of digestion and that machine would probably do a better job of digesting than your body would have (else why bother with designing it).


Oh dear James! Nearly 24000 posts on this philosophy forum, and yet your thinking is so painfully disordered.

1. Think about what people are referring to in the real world when they talk about a computer modelling something. The computer just sits there on the desk, with numbers appearing on the screen.

2. There are machines that can digest waste, but this isn't "modelling digestion", it is digestion.

3. Your question "else why bother with designing it" is just loopy. Did you think it through at all, or do you just write down whatever pops into your head? Life would be a lot easier if just bothering to design something meant that it would work extremely well, but that's not how the world works. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

"We" already know how it arises and it is already being done. The only problem is that in the "we vs them" issue, you are not "we".


This seems pretty much like a delusion. It is not yet known how consciousness arises. It's common knowledge that we don't know that. The idea that a person like you could be "in the know" while all these researchers and philosophers are still in the dark about it is just laughable. Ideas like this make it impossible to take you seriously.
User avatar
Tortis
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:57 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Sat Dec 24, 2016 3:13 pm

Merry Christmas to Christian humans and Christian machines! :)

Image
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Amorphos » Sat Dec 24, 2016 5:55 pm

Merry xmass.

Btw I have solved how to make machines conscious, you just take e.g. a fly or birds brain from fetal stem cells, and grow them in a fractal mesh of veins delivering what it needs [blood and nutrients, oxygen etc]. now you got something looking through the camera lens at you, and operating its machine body. Got that [the body] covered too lol.

:evilfun: :)
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7052
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby James S Saint » Sat Dec 24, 2016 9:14 pm

Tortis wrote:
James S Saint wrote:• A machine could be a model of digestion and that machine would probably do a better job of digesting than your body would have (else why bother with designing it).


Oh dear James! Nearly 24000 posts on this philosophy forum, and yet your thinking is so painfully disordered.

Reminds me of the teenager telling the old man how naive he is. :icon-rolleyes:

Tortis wrote:1. Think about what people are referring to in the real world when they talk about a computer modelling something. The computer just sits there on the desk, with numbers appearing on the screen.

How about you think about what fuse was talking about when he mentioned modeling. He wasn't talking about a computer sitting on a desk. Perhaps after a few thousand posts, you will learn how to read as well. .. or maybe not. Although I'm sure that you believe that you already know how .. despite the evidence.

Tortis wrote:2. There are machines that can digest waste, but this isn't "modelling digestion", it is digestion.

When a machine digests in the same manner as a human digests, it is modeling the human digestion, without being a human. You are conflating "simulation" with "modeling". "Modeling" means "making a likeness of", not simulating in a computer, although in the case of making a likeness of a mind in a computer, it merely takes simulating a mind because there are no physical elements involved in a mind (which is why all of your retorts were nonsense strawmen - look it up). The model merely uses different physical elements to arrange for the same mental processes - a likeness.

Tortis wrote:3. Your question "else why bother with designing it" is just loopy. Did you think it through at all, or do you just write down whatever pops into your head? Life would be a lot easier if just bothering to design something meant that it would work extremely well, but that's not how the world works. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

I see that you are socially and psychologically naive as well as philosophically. But that is both a different thread as well as a different forum. People design machines specifically to do the things that men cannot do. That is precisely why they keep getting better and better at everything - because people design them that way for a purpose.

Tortis wrote:
"We" already know how it arises and it is already being done. The only problem is that in the "we vs them" issue, you are not "we".


This seems pretty much like a delusion. It is not yet known how consciousness arises. It's common knowledge that we don't know that. The idea that a person like you could be "in the know" while all these researchers and philosophers are still in the dark about it is just laughable. Ideas like this make it impossible to take you seriously.

Interesting. I say that something is known - can be verified.
You say that something is not known - cannot be verified.

People like that are difficult to "take seriously", especially when they can't even define what it is that they are talking about. =;

But Merry Christmas anyway. 8)
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Tortis » Sun Dec 25, 2016 12:25 am

James S Saint wrote:How about you think about what fuse was talking about when he mentioned modeling. He wasn't talking about a computer sitting on a desk.


He was talking about producing consciousness using some combination of transistors and vacuum tubes, after I had pointed out that computers could be made out of different kinds of things like that. So he was talking precisely about a computer sitting at a desk.

"Modeling" means "making a likeness of", not simulating in a computer,


Like most words these have a range of meanings, I would guess it is more common to say "modelling on a computer" than "simulating on a computer".

although in the case of making a likeness of a mind in a computer, it merely takes simulating a mind because there are no physical elements involved in a mind (which is why all of your retorts were nonsense strawmen - look it up).


The question whether there are physical elements in the mind has been a major preoccupation of philosophers certainly since the time of Descartes. Your suggestion that I could go and look up the answer somewhere makes it seem as though you are completely unaware of the ongoing debate. You assume the truth of Cartesian Dualism, that the world consists of two substances, mind and matter, that matter is not mind and mind is not matter.

There are many other views. Materialism, idealism, eliminative materialism, epiphenomenalism, neutral monism, etc etc.

The model merely uses different physical elements to arrange for the same mental processes - a likeness.


The problem (well one of them) is that consciousness is associated with these very specific processes in the brain, and there's really no reason to think that vacuum tubes and also transistors would produce the same effects.
User avatar
Tortis
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:57 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Kriswest » Sun Dec 25, 2016 12:49 am

There are chemicals that make a mind. When science can mimic those chemicals then you will have individuals. Chemicals and experience creates.
I will be bitchy, cranky, sweet, happy, kind, pain in the ass all at random times from now on. I am embracing my mentalpause until further notice. Viva lack of total control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not a test,,, this is my life right now. Have a good day and please buckle up for safety reasons,, All those in high chairs, go in the back of the room.
User avatar
Kriswest
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20554
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: stuck in permanent maternal mode.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Meno_ » Sun Dec 25, 2016 12:55 am

Transcriptors.
Meno_
breathless
 
Posts: 7665
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby James S Saint » Sun Dec 25, 2016 3:14 am

Tortis wrote:
The model merely uses different physical elements to arrange for the same mental processes - a likeness.


The problem (well one of them) is that consciousness is associated with these very specific processes in the brain, and there's really no reason to think that vacuum tubes and also transistors would produce the same effects.

To someone having no idea of what he speaks, I'm sure such would seem true.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby IrvaLoona » Sun Dec 25, 2016 6:05 am

Machines deprive millions people of work, they do. But still people servу the cyborgs :)
Afterall, it was noticed that people strive after genuine art which can't be reproduced by robots.
User avatar
IrvaLoona
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 4:48 am

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Kriswest » Sun Dec 25, 2016 11:06 am

jerkey wrote:Transcriptors.

Possibly but, where would emotion come in? Even the smallest animals have emotions, likes and dislikes that individualize them.
I will be bitchy, cranky, sweet, happy, kind, pain in the ass all at random times from now on. I am embracing my mentalpause until further notice. Viva lack of total control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not a test,,, this is my life right now. Have a good day and please buckle up for safety reasons,, All those in high chairs, go in the back of the room.
User avatar
Kriswest
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20554
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: stuck in permanent maternal mode.

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Tortis » Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:26 am

James S Saint wrote:To someone having no idea of what he speaks, I'm sure such would seem true.


Oh come on James, 23,000 posts on a philosophy site and this is the best you can do? Do you ever think maybe you're not cut out for philosophy?
User avatar
Tortis
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:57 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby MagsJ » Mon Dec 26, 2016 4:57 pm

IrvaLoona wrote:Machines deprive millions people of work, they do. But still people servу the cyborgs :)
Afterall, it was noticed that people strive after genuine art which can't be reproduced by robots.

Welcome to ILP Irva.

Robot art would surely lack the emotion that creates a piece in the first place, but I'm sure the robot builders will come up with a random set of emotions created slot-machine style to resolve that issue, but it would probably be a soulless piece.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20953
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby nano-bug » Mon Dec 26, 2016 7:58 pm

Change happens. It's the one constant. An exact representation of how we think is not needed to replace us. Machines aren't needed either. Change is bound to happen. The sun will melt us down without a machine assisted escape from the planet. However many years from now our future species will not be recognizable to us. Is that a negative thing? If we are replaced, is that a negative thing? Must we really go on? Should we forever be carving our names and our legacy on the bathroom stall of the universe? Obscurity is the way of the universe. Is that a bad thing? Or can we just have gratitude for existing today?

Looking at the original post it seems this is more about replacing jobs than causing extinction. That will happen, job loss. We just happen to be the sacrificial job losing generation. Making threads about it. I view the future of humanity much like Orson Wells did in The Time Machine. A race of light, frail jitterbugs, pushing buttons while laughing, apart from a race of underground grunts.

The machine is already, but only, an extension of us. And us an extension of something that existed before human form.
Highly adaptable. Yes. Wait! What? Yes. He, herself, is a head fuck. Well, will you look at this little train of thought?
User avatar
nano-bug
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3174
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:35 pm
Location: The Virtuplex

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby James S Saint » Mon Dec 26, 2016 9:30 pm

When something is amiss with your car, you have the choice of;
    A) Repair it
    B) Replace it
    C) Let it rot

The same is true for your species.
Not everyone agrees on which choice to make, so all choices are in practice.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby nano-bug » Mon Dec 26, 2016 9:53 pm

No doubt bionic men will have to contend with rust.
Highly adaptable. Yes. Wait! What? Yes. He, herself, is a head fuck. Well, will you look at this little train of thought?
User avatar
nano-bug
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3174
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:35 pm
Location: The Virtuplex

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Tortis » Mon Dec 26, 2016 10:01 pm

MagsJ wrote:
Robot art would surely lack the emotion that creates a piece in the first place, but I'm sure the robot builders will come up with a random set of emotions created slot-machine style to resolve that issue, but it would probably be a soulless piece.


I'm a musician, I record myself each time I practise. Sometimes when I am practising I am utterly swept away by the music, full of emotion. But other times I am thinking about an argument I had earlier in the day, or about what we are going to eat later. Sometimes I am thinking about technical aspects of the music. The thing is, I listen to the recordings, and I can't tell the difference, how I was feeling and what I was thinking about don't get into the music.

I've noticed the same thing when performing live, sometimes you are thinking about where exactly you are in the piece, who is going to come in next, maybe looking at somebody in the audience, at other times you are focussing intensely on the music, trying to convey feeling, and again I record myself and I can't tell what I was thinking about when I was playing.

I'm quite sure I'm not unique in this, and that it applies to other forms of art. I guess people don't like to talk about it because it seems to take away the magic. But the magic wasn't really there anyway.
User avatar
Tortis
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:57 pm

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby nano-bug » Mon Dec 26, 2016 11:02 pm

Yes, Tortis, there is work being done in the narrative arena with computers. Computers pumping out chunks of text that would instantly compile as a story. It still does lack what I see you value. Don't let me fault you for championing human creativity. Because if these computers can get the knack for creative juices we'll be sitting around getting told stories by the electronic camp fire.

Strange days, indeed, mama, most peculiar.
Highly adaptable. Yes. Wait! What? Yes. He, herself, is a head fuck. Well, will you look at this little train of thought?
User avatar
nano-bug
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3174
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:35 pm
Location: The Virtuplex

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Arminius » Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:04 am

James S Saint wrote:When something is amiss with your car, you have the choice of;
    A) Repair it
    B) Replace it
    C) Let it rot

The same is true for your species.
Not everyone agrees on which choice to make, so all choices are in practice.

And at last a thing or many things, an individual or many individuals as a species are repaired (A), or replaced (B), or rotted (C), or, if time is considered too, repaired and then replaced (A and B), or repaired and then rotted (A and C), or replaced and then rotted (B and C), or repaired,then replaced, then rotted (A, B, C). :wink:
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby MagsJ » Wed Dec 28, 2016 12:02 am

Tortis wrote:I'm quite sure I'm not unique in this, and that it applies to other forms of art. I guess people don't like to talk about it because it seems to take away the magic. But the magic wasn't really there anyway.
Do you think that a well-programmed machine could create unique music and art? nuances and all.. I guess that brings us back to the question of emotions in machines, or really good programming and a tonne of algorithms as a substitute.

Such creations would be to showcase the companies' talents and products, and people would buy robot art and robot music as a gimmick only, as we like our idols with a heart and pulse.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite.. - MagsJ
I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get back that time, and I may need it for something at some point in time.. Huh! - MagsJ
You’re suggestions and I, just simply don’t mix.. like oil on water, or a really bad DJ - MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist: a chic geek
 
Posts: 20953
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Postby Tortis » Wed Dec 28, 2016 10:35 am

MagsJ wrote: Do you think that a well-programmed machine could create unique music and art? nuances and all.. I guess that brings us back to the question of emotions in machines, or really good programming and a tonne of algorithms as a substitute.


There have been many robot painters. Don't know if this link will work, if not Google "aaron robot painter" Image

Does this art have "nuances"?

And there's this sort of thing:

Miranda and Tikhanoff describe an autonomous music composition system for the Sony AIBO robot that employs statistical models as well as rules.25 The system is trained on various styles of music and a short phrase is generated based off of the previous chord and first melodic note of the previous phrase. The AIBO interacts with its environment and the behavior of the composition is modified based off of obstacles, colors, the presence of humans, and different emotional states.
User avatar
Tortis
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 3:57 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users