If you think you have a valid reason for postulating the existence of a supernatural entity that supposedly created the world in which we live please post those reasons here for discussion and possible rebuttal.
Thank you.
Reasons to postulate the existence of a God.
Moderator: Moderators
- Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Reasons to postulate the existence of a God.
Post #1[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1670
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:21 pm
- Location: Europe
- Has thanked: 10 times
- Been thanked: 21 times
Post #171
Not in my book. It's not art.rikuoamero wrote:This value is subjective. There is no such thing as an objective artistic value.
Where did I say it is art?It's not. It's about what I and Bust Nak think is the erroneous position you hold that computers don't or cannot do creative art.
I cannot tell the difference between AI junk and AI+human input junk. So? Junk is Junk. How is one supposed to tell if someone used a mouse in this image? We are not talking about whether someone used Photoshop to do some colour patterns, we are talking about creative thinking. The piece submitted does not show any depth of thought. You are being ridiculous.I haven't read the full discussion between you two, but my own position is that one needs an objective definition for creative art, creativity. One needs to be able to tell the difference between what a human does, and what a computer does, before asserting that only humans have creativity and computers don't. If one cannot tell the difference, then either computers are/can be creative too, or humans don't deserve the label either.
LOL. So what? Just because a thing is in a gallery does not mean it is art. Jeff Koons has work in galleries. JEFF KOONS! LOLThat painting has been in art galleries.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9874
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Post #172
This is a moot point because you've defined "creativity" and "thinking" in such a way as to rule out AI. That's why we moved onto showing you that the end results, regardless creative thought or lack there of, matches what human can do.mgb wrote: we are talking about creative thinking. The piece submitted does not show any depth of thought.
As for it being junk, you just need to train the AI to generate images that you like. Or perhaps "I like A more than B, do the next one more like A" count as being told what to do?
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1670
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:21 pm
- Location: Europe
- Has thanked: 10 times
- Been thanked: 21 times
Post #173
The image posted is far too simple and basic to hinge an argument upon. You would need something more sophisticated. The patterns in the image look very much like the clone tool in photoshop. That one cannot tell whether the clone tool was used by a human or not means nothing. Besides, the use of the clone tool is primarily a digital process with limited human input. How is one supposed to tell the difference in an image that is so rudimentary?This is a moot point because you've defined "creativity" and "thinking" in such a way as to rule out AI. That's why we moved onto showing you that the end results, regardless creative thought or lack there of, matches what human can do.
I don't think anything will be resolved by getting into subjective opinions about what art is and is not.As for it being junk, you just need to train the AI to generate images that you like. Or perhaps "I like A more than B, do the next one more like A" count as being told what to do?
- rikuoamero
- Under Probation
- Posts: 6707
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
- Been thanked: 4 times
Post #174
[Replying to post 171 by mgb]
So is "junk" the barometer that you want to use? That's something separate from creativity.
How is this something other than your own subjective opinion? Did you think of it to be a piece of artwork (albeit of a low quality) before I revealed it was done by an AI?Not in my book. It's not art.
Just now, in this reply.Where did I say it is art?
You are calling it junk, and that is your own subjective opinion. Not something objectively true about the piece. There are plenty of works done by humans that I would call "junk" but I would guess you would not deny the fact that they were creative.I cannot tell the difference between AI junk and AI+human input junk. So? Junk is Junk.
So is "junk" the barometer that you want to use? That's something separate from creativity.
Did you think that before I revealed its origins? I could show you plenty of pieces of artwork, and ask you which ones are done by computers, which ones by humans, but unless you have external information, one would be unable to tell the difference.The piece submitted does not show any depth of thought.
So does your opinion trump that of the gallery owner/directors? They have their own subjective opinion as to what counts as art, as to what gets to be in their gallery. Where's the objective standard as to what counts as art, or good art, or not junk?Just because a thing is in a gallery does not mean it is art.
No idea who he is.Jeff Koons has work in galleries.
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9874
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Post #175
Which is why I suggested finding images that are more to your liking. If your objection was purely a matter of degrees of sophistication, then a more sophisticated image should be able to convince you, right?mgb wrote: The image posted is far too simple and basic to hinge an argument upon...
While we are here, it's not entirely clear how sophistication is different from "how much I like it."
That's why I am trying side step that conversation by calling it "generated image" instead of art.I don't think anything will be resolved by getting into subjective opinions about what art is and is not.
- rikuoamero
- Under Probation
- Posts: 6707
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
- Been thanked: 4 times
Post #176
[Replying to post 173 by mgb]
Does Ferris's computer graphic count as art, as being sophisticated, or creative?
So please explain what is your barometer for creativity? Is it sophistication, whatever that means?
The image posted was more sophisticated than what Ferris Bueller did in the movie.The image posted is far too simple and basic to hinge an argument upon. You would need something more sophisticated.
Does Ferris's computer graphic count as art, as being sophisticated, or creative?
So please explain what is your barometer for creativity? Is it sophistication, whatever that means?
What if you're like me, and know nothing about photoshop, have never used or will never use it?The patterns in the image look very much like the clone tool in photoshop. That one cannot tell whether the clone tool was used by a human or not means nothing.
...you've been doing that for the past few posts. You have been stating all along that the image I posted is not art, so I have to ask why say this now?I don't think anything will be resolved by getting into subjective opinions about what art is and is not.
Last edited by rikuoamero on Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense
-
- Guru
- Posts: 1670
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:21 pm
- Location: Europe
- Has thanked: 10 times
- Been thanked: 21 times
Post #177
No. In my first response I was being polite. It reminded me of some schizophrenic art.rikuoamero wrote:Did you think of it to be a piece of artwork (albeit of a low quality) before I revealed it was done by an AI?
I was a great fan of Carl Palmer...
The net effect in Moon's case is a result of good and bad luck; good behaviour and bad behaviour.
No. The image is too trivial, even technically, to be the basis for any serious discussion. It is a collection of blotches.Did you think that before I revealed its origins?
Well, subjective opinion is not going to resolve this either way.So does your opinion trump that of the gallery owner/directors? They have their own subjective opinion as to what counts as art, as to what gets to be in their gallery
My objection is that it is a digital image and it is impossible to tell if a human being had some input vis a vis Photoshop.Bust Nak wrote:If your objection was purely a matter of degrees of sophistication, then a more sophisticated image should be able to convince you.
It is very hard to find a computer generated image that can be discussed meaningfully. This is because there is always human input. For example, there are millions of colours. If a computer was let loose with these how would it decide upon colour? I've seen these images and it seems to me that the computer is given a limited, harmonius palette of colours to get it started, but that's human input. Also, the image seems to be fed to the computer from a camera, etc.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9874
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Post #178
Does that matter? We are not asking you to spot the one purely AI generated image from a bunch of mostly AI generated images. We are asking you to spot the AI generated one from human generated ones.mgb wrote: My objection is that it is a digital image and it is impossible to tell if a human being had some input vis a vis Photoshop.
If you can't then regradless of the talk on art, creatively, thinking, intelligence or intuition, computer is on par with human when it comes to generating images.
That's not all that different from a human deciding to limit his colors to those that matches the subject of his painting.This is because there is always human input. For example, there are millions of colours. If a computer was let loose with these how would it decide upon colour? I've seen these images and it seems to me that the computer is given a limited, harmonius palette of colours to get it started, but that's human input.
And your typical human painting is fed an image from his mk 1 human eye balls. Why on Earth did you think to bring this up?Also, the image seems to be fed to the computer from a camera, etc.