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.
No doubt bionic men will have to contend with rust.
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.
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.
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). 
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.
There have been many robot painters. Don’t know if this link will work, if not Google “aaron robot painter” 
Does this art have “nuances”?
And there’s this sort of thing:
Pretty sure if you played this to people and said it was experimental music by Korean composer Ha Na Lee they would accept that.
It’s equally as bad as the worst human art out there, so on par with humans… even if it is at the worst end of the scale. No nuances, but then bad art tends not to have any.
There’s money to be made in gimmicks… a glorified synthesiser in a robot is always gonna sell, but how will emotional states be gauged? through the external rather than the internal, so clapping and cheering rather than how we intrinsically feel?
There is zero nuance… and therefore zero soul… in that composition, but most over-produced popular music can be labeled so.
I was born in a pre-synth world, so perhaps that is why I can hear the difference between human and robot music, but once my kind die out there will be no-one left who can differentiate, and then robot offerings will be undifferentiatable from pre-synth and current over-produced offerings… saturation point.
They aren’t going to be boasting on how much better their computers are than you … quite the opposite.
Why make computer art or computer music?
Human artists express themselves and communicate something about being human.
A computer expresses nothing and communicates nothing. Humans may find a pattern in the final product but that’s it.
If a computer paints an exact replica of ‘Guernica’, it still knows nothing about the events at Guernica or what it means to humans.
That’s why 'painted by a human" and “painted by a computer” are fundamentally different.
Mozart and Metallica are saying something deeper than a what a computer programmed to copy their composition style is ‘saying’.
Simulating soulfulness doesn’t require a soul any more than a human assuming to know or sensing he has a soul without having to locate it, where it resides or how it resides.
Eventually styles will be imitated and you won’t know the differences between sources. A seamless mirror. Why? Because human beings won’t stop until they get computers to achieve this. Whether they achieve this a hundred years after they predict they will achieve it doesn’t matter, they will achieve it. It doesn’t matter if it happens in our lifetime, how many awkward mistakes or setbacks, how many noticeable flaws are detected today, it will happen.
You may say humans can’t control the weather, won’t ever control the weather. But there isn’t one weather person who isn’t trying to inch us toward total weather control at some point in the future. And every inch counts along the way, butterfly effect style.
We really have nothing but time to try and perfect Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality. Because we have time, we will perfect it. My bet, we perfect those things before the sun becomes a black-hole. Just because it won’t happen in my lifetime, doesn’t mean I’ll hold my own human greatness up so high that a computer can’t match it. All it has to do is imitate us. And all we have to do is teach it to imitate. Life, the big drama, is full of actors. Computers are built by actors, built to out perform.
Show me a nuance and I’ll show you an author of that nuance. Show me an author and I’ll show you computer programmer who designs programs to count that authors word choice and phrase frequency. And so on. It’s called stylistics.
In the future they will look back at our history now and marvel at the time when computers didn’t display human emotion to the exact, precise, micro-expression on a skin grown in a lab robot face. The same way we think of people using candles before light bulbs. Or walking to the the water well instead of turning the tap.
Think of computers as our children. It’s really hard when they are little to picture them as adults. Just because we might die before they get married, doesn’t mean the wedding won’t happen, with grandchildren on the way who never met us but carry an old photo of us in their wallet everywhere they go.
Lastly, expressing what it means to be human changes because what it means to be human changes. Our emotional temperature is changing. Our emotions will meet the computer halfway. And the midpoint can also shift. Pointing for a caveman meant a lot more to him when he didn’t have words, it was more meaningful than someone using gestures to give a stranger directions. Expressions evolve. We evolve. Computers evolve. We evolve together. To create more levels of evolution.
My last post on ILP. Thanks. :-"
There is this strange fatalism that comes from being mesmerized by technology … the idea that we can’t control it or guide in directions that we desire and we should not even try.
As a result, we must accept loss of privacy, continuous surveillance, job loss, etc … without question or resistance. 
Indeed. However, there is a catch. Expressions can be nuanced, but impressions can not. The feedback of input/output will be degraded, just as much as what critics of TV viewing level against them for thwarting inventive building of the imagination. There will be no effort involved in a constructive imagination-image building- so impressions will be exponentially short cut before we ever get to any black hole.
Simply, reality will stop to be a functional concept, since reality and virtual reality will become inseparable. Therefore, the concept of reality will become useless.
With no sense of the real, the public will have to be controlled near absolutely, as regards to anything reified , and their obvious lack in image making will reduce them to automorons. That this is already happening, with the half life of our planet still in the future, the idea of the black holed planet will have to be suppressed, because a disingenuous populace will commit mass suicide without a motif for life. It takes a great deal of imagination to be able to live and inspire life, no machine can ever do it, unless, and this is risky, unless we ourselves are machines, but then it was utter thoughtless to release that genie to the public.
More and more I think the Roman Catholics were right not to release that seal.
It may have been metaphorically , a prescription for the expulsion.
Is there a cure? Can it be reversed? Can 1984 be prevented?
That no one has yet thought of any, is no absolute proof of a Faustian deal again shrewdly broken.
… a fantasy. People awake from dreams for a reason. When they stop awakening, the reason takes them away.
These are certainly the accepted views, but philosophers (and artists) often seek to challenge accepted views.
Some artists might wish to challenge your views about self-expression and communication precisely by having art produced by a computer or some other non-human agency.
Some philosophers might wish to challenge your view that artists express themselves and communicate something.
If somebody (a human) in a Chinese painting factory paints a copy of “Guernica” without knowing what it means:
aliexpress.com/item-img/100 … 7.2.7U31yK
100% Hand painted oil painting on canvas Famous artist Picasso abstract painting Guernica art picture decoration paintings
does that express something and communicate something?
I play jazz, and the accepted view is that that is all about self-expression and communication. So, suppose I learn to play Alabama by John Coltrane. It was written in response to the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing on September 15, 1963, an attack by the Ku Klux Klan in Birmingham, Alabama that killed four girls. But I don’t know that when I learn it off an album, I think it is about the decline of the steel industry.
So I learn the tune, and I play it to you in a smoky nightclub. You listen to it and think I am communicating to you about the tragedy of the 16th Street bombing, the person next to you is thinking I am communicating about how sexy and mysterious I am, and while I am apparently playing with great intensity, I am actually thinking about whether I have enough fuel in the car to get home after the gig.
What is being expressed and communicated?
This: an event that sparked the initial process to conceptualise said event in an outward expression through the medium of music.
I wonder what those algorithms would spur a computer to create? probably something totally different to Coltrane’s piece.
The original composer is expressing something in particular.
A player who learns and plays another artist’s composition is saying that the piece is worth playing and passing on. He is inserting his own individual emphasis in the performance. He is showing his skill. He enjoys playing. Maybe all he is expressing is that he needs to get paid and put a few potatoes on his dinner plate. Maybe Mozart also produced pieces just to pay his rent.
The person in the audience is experiencing that and supporting it. Does there need to be more?
Even a copier in a Chinese painting factory is getting more out of it than a computer.
How is the original event (the KKK attack) being expressed through the music, if neither I nor the people listening to me are aware of the event, and we think the music expresses something completely different?
I don’t believe the music carries that information. If the audience weren’t told, they could never work it out from the music itself, from the sound.
The same is true of language: it doesn’t carry information in the way that I think is generally assumed. That’s what makes it an interesting philosophical question for me.