This question "Can a machine truly see the world as we do?" will probably hunt us forever. Especially because AI is already a huge business, taking capitalisation to an extreme level. My art practice is strongly influenced by new technologies, and AI is an interesting medium to explore, especially because it is challenging the very meaning of life and being human. Machines are promoted as new beings capable of extraordinary tasks, and gifted with incredible skills. Machines do, machines see, machines feel. I always found this critical narrative of machines very interesting. AI is storming the artworld. Everyone is rushing to give answers to possible conclusions while I strongly believe that at this stage, more than the right answers we should look for the right questions, and have doubts. What's art in the age of AI? Who is the artist? Is a work by AI really art? We have plenty of questions to explore. Marcu du Sautoy in his The Creativity Code, illustrating the work by Dr Ahmed Elgammal in "understanding the tension between the new and the not too new", and analysing the aesthetic phenomenon of AI art and the concept of arousal, quotes Prof. Berlyne who believed that the most significant properties of aesthetics are novelty, unexpectedness, complexity, ambiguity, and the ability to puzzle or cofound. I tested the algorithms of Playform, an AI platform based of Elgammal's work, to reach the absurd. Erase Human from a work of art, and from acknowledging if an image is art or not. Can a machine see an image as we do? Art has always influenced our world and the way we see it, and feel it. Can a machine go this far? Will it ever go this far? And do we need machines to go this far? Of course, this bizarre attempt was a provocation to the ethernal debate, is AI art or not? I will let you read more on my website at this link. ["Art is ultimately an expression of human free will, and until computers have their own version of this, art created by a computer will always be traceable back to a human desire to create", Marcu du Sautoy]. http://www.dombarra.art/erasedhuman
We might see embodiment when we see combinations like robots connected to AI or with built-in AI.
What if they can see more color and light spectrum, hear higher and lower frequencies and maybe even have things like radar? Will more sensors, faster cognition and the ability to manipulate and live in the real world give them more consciousness than humans?
We can’t talk to dolphins to know what they experience, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we are talking with robots that can at least seem as conscious as the LLMs do now, where they can pass a Turing test and people claim to have relationships with them.
I wrote a piece on abstraction and how AI might be heading us in that direction. https://open.substack.com/pub/aswinmanohar/p/ai-the-richardson-paradox-and-new?r=5fpilo&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
M M-P also nicely writes how we are free, "not inspite of, but thanks to living in a [stochastically] determined world."
A brilliant man.
This question "Can a machine truly see the world as we do?" will probably hunt us forever. Especially because AI is already a huge business, taking capitalisation to an extreme level. My art practice is strongly influenced by new technologies, and AI is an interesting medium to explore, especially because it is challenging the very meaning of life and being human. Machines are promoted as new beings capable of extraordinary tasks, and gifted with incredible skills. Machines do, machines see, machines feel. I always found this critical narrative of machines very interesting. AI is storming the artworld. Everyone is rushing to give answers to possible conclusions while I strongly believe that at this stage, more than the right answers we should look for the right questions, and have doubts. What's art in the age of AI? Who is the artist? Is a work by AI really art? We have plenty of questions to explore. Marcu du Sautoy in his The Creativity Code, illustrating the work by Dr Ahmed Elgammal in "understanding the tension between the new and the not too new", and analysing the aesthetic phenomenon of AI art and the concept of arousal, quotes Prof. Berlyne who believed that the most significant properties of aesthetics are novelty, unexpectedness, complexity, ambiguity, and the ability to puzzle or cofound. I tested the algorithms of Playform, an AI platform based of Elgammal's work, to reach the absurd. Erase Human from a work of art, and from acknowledging if an image is art or not. Can a machine see an image as we do? Art has always influenced our world and the way we see it, and feel it. Can a machine go this far? Will it ever go this far? And do we need machines to go this far? Of course, this bizarre attempt was a provocation to the ethernal debate, is AI art or not? I will let you read more on my website at this link. ["Art is ultimately an expression of human free will, and until computers have their own version of this, art created by a computer will always be traceable back to a human desire to create", Marcu du Sautoy]. http://www.dombarra.art/erasedhuman
We might see embodiment when we see combinations like robots connected to AI or with built-in AI.
What if they can see more color and light spectrum, hear higher and lower frequencies and maybe even have things like radar? Will more sensors, faster cognition and the ability to manipulate and live in the real world give them more consciousness than humans?
We can’t talk to dolphins to know what they experience, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we are talking with robots that can at least seem as conscious as the LLMs do now, where they can pass a Turing test and people claim to have relationships with them.