Reasons to postulate the existence of a God.

Divine Insight · Post by **Divine Insight** » Mon Dec 24, 2018 9:06 pm

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.

mgb · Post by **mgb** » Fri Jan 18, 2019 4:16 pm

rikuoamero wrote:This value is subjective. There is no such thing as an objective artistic value.

Not in my book. It's not 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.

Where did I say it is art?

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.

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.

That painting has been in art galleries.

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! LOL

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:42 am

mgb wrote: we are talking about creative thinking. The piece submitted does not show any depth of thought.

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.

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?

mgb · Post by **mgb** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 9:19 am

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.

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?

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?

I don't think anything will be resolved by getting into subjective opinions about what art is and is not.

rikuoamero · Post by **rikuoamero** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:05 am

[Replying to post 171 by mgb]

Not in my book. It's not art.

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?

Where did I say it is art?

Just now, in this reply.

I cannot tell the difference between AI junk and AI+human input junk. So? Junk is Junk.

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.
So is "junk" the barometer that you want to use? That's something separate from creativity.

The piece submitted does not show any depth of thought.

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.

Just because a thing is in a gallery does not mean it is art.

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?

Jeff Koons has work in galleries.

No idea who he is.

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:08 am

mgb wrote: The image posted is far too simple and basic to hinge an argument upon...

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?

While we are here, it's not entirely clear how sophistication is different from "how much I like it."

I don't think anything will be resolved by getting into subjective opinions about what art is and is not.

That's why I am trying side step that conversation by calling it "generated image" instead of art.

rikuoamero · Post by **rikuoamero** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:18 am

[Replying to post 173 by mgb]

The image posted is far too simple and basic to hinge an argument upon. You would need something more sophisticated.

The image posted was more sophisticated than what Ferris Bueller did in the movie.

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 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.

What if you're like me, and know nothing about photoshop, have never used or will never use it?

I don't think anything will be resolved by getting into subjective opinions about what art is and is not.

...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?

mgb · Post by **mgb** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:19 am

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?

No. In my first response I was being polite. It reminded me of some schizophrenic art.

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.

Did you think that before I revealed its origins?

No. The image is too trivial, even technically, to be the basis for any serious discussion. It is a collection of blotches.

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

Well, subjective opinion is not going to resolve this either way.

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.

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.

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.

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Mon Jan 21, 2019 12:18 pm

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's not all that different from a human deciding to limit his colors to those that matches the subject of his painting.

Also, the image seems to be fed to the computer from a camera, etc.

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?