6 Jun
2016
6 Jun
'16
7:16 a.m.
On Mon, June 6, 2016 4:41 am, jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com wrote:
On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 01:33:43 -0400
"jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com" <jonetsu(a)teksavvy.com> wrote:
At the moment there is a (subtle) interplay between the human engineers
and the AI. The AI can produce a vast array of results but the value is
currently at the discretion of the human engineer as they are the ones who
have to publish the results (and receive/absorb the criticism).
As the AI (child) learns though a results driven process it will
eventually become very competent at producing high quality and unique
results without the guidance of an engineer (parent).
How is that any different from the human learning process? Some of us are
faster/better than others but we all go through the same basic
machinations. Feedback is a very important contributor to behavior
(results).
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 22:12:24 -0700
Erik Steffl <erik(a)zasran.com> wrote:
How much of robots are we ? Can we assume that since we are humans, we
are not robots ? I'm thinking about that when working on a sketch (1).
The decision to press this button to play that beat then to press the
other button to segue into something else. The decision that yes, this
sounds all right with that. Apart from the guy who plays guitar out of
rhythm, anything else could have been done by a machine ?
(1) https://soundcloud.com/nominal6/jam5
great emotional impact on audience does not
require great
emotional investment of performer/author. Think of ocean or sunset
or flowers - no emotions but they are beautiful/impactful. (you
might now change argument to what's natural or not but that's a
separate argument, only pointing out the emotions here)
Even though humans are indeed machines in many aspects, as buttons can
be pressed to make them react in certain ways, emotionally, there is
still a chance that an emotional painting-by-numbers piece will not
fare so good, once the initial impact has passed.