Computers Are Incapable Of Creatively Writing Music

Steve Klinko said:
Haaahhhh! I think you are telling me that ANNs have Tongues. I didn't Know that!
Click to expand...
Oh c'mon, don't be ridiculous.
Ever heard of a robot able sample stuff? Do you think scientist can tell when a H2O pattern is expressed as water or ice, but a measuring device cannot? I wonder how scientist sample water for contaminants, do they just hold it up a cup of water and look for nano particles floating about?
 
C C said:
The artistic brain is following rules, too, either explicitly or implicitly. But with the addition of personal memories and passions performing a regulating and selective process.
Click to expand...
Painting a person standing on his head in an office setting is creative, but it's not Art.

*Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response leading to thoughts of the noblest kind* W4U

I believe that does not necessarily exclude AI created paintings which depict a new way of looking at a possible logical reality.

AI Made These Paintings
1400x-1.jpg


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-17/ai-made-incredible-paintings-in-about-two-weeks

I think this not perfect but certainly remarkable as an Impressionist painting.

Do a Google search on "AI created paintings" and goto Images. You'll be surprised
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
Painting a person standing on his head in an office setting is creative, but it's not Art.

*Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response leading to thoughts of the noblest kind* W4U

I believe that does not necessarily exclude AI created paintings which depict a new way of looking at a possible logical reality.

AI Made These Paintings
https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ig5fvHIehhIg/v0/1400x-1.jpg

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-17/ai-made-incredible-paintings-in-about-two-weeks

I think this not perfect but certainly remarkable as an Impressionist painting.

Do a Google search on "AI created paintings" and goto Images. You'll be surprised
Click to expand...

EXCERPT: "He fed a few thousand examples of paintings into his artificial intelligence software until it learned how to create landscapes like the one on this issue’s cover."​

That's what I meant by using machine learning to statistically apprehend what specific attributes made the most popular music "popular" (convert that data analysis to algorithm or formulaic procedures). With respect to paintings, in addition to the above, one provides the program with the standards of art critics or many examples of what they select as the best. So that the AI has a chance to output something that (for humans) is beyond just mediocre classification.

It also helps that certain people are easily fooled in a pareidolic or apophenia-like manner, wherein they attribute understanding to even primitive programs that lack such: The new oracles & gods: When people trust computers more than other humans. Arguably a psychological habit that goes back to the days of worshiping stone idols, or construing shape/form as a representative connection to prior-in-rank concepts and principles governing the world.
 
I agree to all the possible ramifications of AI and what constitutes original art.

I believe in the abstract concepts of mathematics. If someone gave me that painting I'd put it on my wall ......
 
The Programmers wrote a Creative Program, but the Painting itself is just a Computer Algorithmic Calculation of a Simulation of a style or styles of Painting.
 
Steve Klinko said:
The Programmers wrote a Creative Program, but the Painting itself is just a Computer Algorithmic Calculation of a Simulation of a style or styles of Painting.
Click to expand...
Question is if you would hang it on your wall as an original? I would. An AI painting from the Impressionist school.
 
Write4U said:
Question is if you would hang it on your wall as an original? I would. An AI painting from the Impressionist school.
Click to expand...

Like an armless person who paints with his/her foot, the AI work might appeal to some as a novelty item, an eccentricity. A showpiece for guests: "Look, this canvas fabric was adorned in impressionist style by a ..."

It would also have historical value if it was among the first produced by machine learning.

Another speculation is could AI develop an entirely new mode of painting (verb), not just create within the guidelines of an established category or template (granting that such was even possible, should every remaining prospect have been exhausted).

It seems probable if an all-inclusive, fundamental set of rules and requirements for artwork is available that the process could haphazardly explore combinations of (like genetic mutations), till it finally outputted a new approach that was appealing to humans. Not necessarily provided by programmers, but a sort of framework of principles crouched in statistical mapping that it derived on its own via a lengthy sampling of what the spectrum of [existing] painting styles had in common.

But this would be radical creativity by brute force (the way evolution does it) rather than by personal inspirations stemming from the quasi-unique events of an individual life.
 
Last edited:
C C said:
But this would be radical creativity by brute force (the way evolution does it) rather than by personal inspirations stemming from the quasi-unique events of an individual life.
Click to expand...

I dout that the "personal inspirations" of a human are any more free than the output of a programed AI painter.!!!
 
Last edited:
Steve Klinko said:
The Programmers wrote a Creative Program, but the Painting itself is just a Computer Algorithmic Calculation of a Simulation of a style or styles of Painting.
Click to expand...
Nope. Programs intended for art do not use "computer algorithmic calculation." They learn what good art is and create new art based on that learning.
 
billvon said:
Nope. Programs intended for art do not use "computer algorithmic calculation." They learn what good art is and create new art based on that learning.
Click to expand...
Is that also how elephants learn how to paint?

:)
 
cluelusshusbund said:
I dout that the "personal inspirations" of a human are any more free than the output of a programed AI painter.!!!
Click to expand...

A computer doesn't have a life and all the quirky emotions, feelings and addictions arising from encounters with this and that, as well mental illness and depression that drive the imagination of some artists.
 
C C said:
A computer doesn't have a life and all the quirky emotions, feelings and addictions arising from encounters with this and that, as well mental illness and depression that drive the imagination of some artists.
Click to expand...
I mostly agree to that.

But if we speak about the school of Realism, impressionism (emotionalism) is not a "must".
images
painting
images
photograph

An AI trained in recognizing unusual natural phenomena, such as seldom seen sunsets or storms or people doing stuff in unusual settings, may well be able to bring out the "novelty" in its representation, which is also a subject of interest in art.
Note: I'm sure an AI can be trained to recognize unusual and rarely seen "patterns" as compared to everyday (mundane) settings.

Then, if the AI is trained in a particular school of painting (see #302), who knows what masterpieces it may come up with.

Even human artists often settled on painting in a specific style, their signature style. Can an AI have or learn a signature style?
 
What comes to mind is that when we speak about humans we see a person, a man, a woman, a child. But in reality that is not what makes a human human. It is the brain, locked inside a skull, dark and silent, separated from reality, that constitutes the "person". And it does so from making "best guesses" of what the senses tell it what they observe.

Is a color blind person less human than a fully color aware person?
Color blindness occurs when light-sensitive cells in the retina fail to respond appropriately to variations in wavelengths of light that enable people to see an array of colors. Photoreceptors in the retina are called rods and cones.
Click to expand...
It's obvious that this has nothing to do with brain function itself. It's a sensory defect and does not allow the brain to process the correct information. So, can we say that to some degree the brain is also an AI albeit biological?

Is it true that a brain deprived of all sensory awareness tends to experience (inhuman) "uncontrolled hallucination" .
 
I have a problem with comparing AI abilities developed over a few decades with HI abilities developed over a few million years and still requires 22-26 yrs of learning before it is fully capable of maximum performance.

Humans also have to "learn" everything that they know and use in every facet of life. There is 16-18 years of basic learning and another 4-6 years of advanced learning, and in the case of say the art of medicine, another 2 years internship, before mastery of the subject is acknowledged.

Why not wait another few decades before we start comparing AI with HI, recognizing the inherent different functions they are designed for.
 
Last edited:
Just watch this;

These boys have one thing wrong . This composition does not need to incorporate emotion, it's just code. What it needs is a conductor leading a human orchestra. That's where you'll find the emotional part.

A script by Beethoven does not express emotion, it's notes on a piece of paper. The emotion is in the performance !

The AI composition was brilliant, IMO
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
Just watch this;

These boys have one thing wrong . This composition does not need to incorporate emotion, it's just code. What it needs is a conductor leading a human orchestra. That's where you'll find the emotional part.

A script by Beethoven does not express emotion, it's notes on a piece of paper. The emotion is in the performance !

The AI composition was brilliant, IMO
Click to expand...

"Emotion, feelings" as well as idiosyncratic habits, preferences, and interests developed as a result of individual life incidents -- as addressed on this segment of the thread -- does not refer to what a passive viewer or listener is personally experiencing. But how such may actively affect the choices/decisions of an artist, composer, novelist, etc in the course of their creating a work. Any idiot can master rote and work entirely within a strict, predictable framework or template. The surprises come from rebellious impulses and attractions that wander from that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top