The Communication Cube
- Thread starter Jourdy288
- Start date
I must have written it poorly. I meant: do you believe in free will or do you just don't believe in it ?What do you mean at all? Some people have free will and some don't?? Ha ha ha. I agree with that
Because if you don't think free will exists, and you were talking about creativity as if you believe creativity exists, then I assume you'll believe free will is not necessary for creativity, and my previous question makes no sense to you.
So Heisenberg be damned ?
I tend to believe love is a feeling that can easily cause biochemical reactions. Sometimes even mutual biochemical chain reactions between (usually) two biological systems.
No amount of ballistics can tell you whether you should or should not pull a trigger. It will at most tell you about reach and aim, etc. but do you want to shoot or not ?
But love is almost always some different concept for every different person, sometimes even for different experiences of the same person, so trying to define it might be quite futile.
That precisely has been the bane of many an innocent daisy flower.
Djoga'Ro
moonstruck
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2016
- Messages
- 2,504
And then there're those quantum mechanics with their pesky probabilities.
But still, I don't see no angle to doctor free will in there.
The only thing I know is I know nothing. I have theories because I enjoy discourse, I guess. I am not fanatical about my pov.
I don't really believe in science. It works for us but F=MA is not a "law" that the natural world obeys it's simply a relationship that allows us to predict things effectively from a human perspective. Newtonian physics is basically supplanted by Relativity yet we still use it. It would be foolish (egomaniac) to think there are no better explanations, ones that don't use math as we know it, which a human invention. Our world is a product of our senses - which are censored.
Heisenbergs uncertainty principle is a result of his specific methodology aka fudged mathematical equations. What is a photon? A massless particle that bounces around at the speed of light. From Narnia delivered by the tooth fairy. It's made up to satisfy equations that got out of hand and to publish papers. Scientists pretending they discovered something but actually it's made up. If we didn't have eyes we wouldn't have invented photons. Does God have eyes? ....
I see parallels in AGI and GUT - the Grand Unified Theorem. Neither are universal both are specific to humans otherwise we would not be able to detect let alone comprehend them. We are looking for answers we can understand. Anyway.
I don't really like Lex Fridman but I do like John Carmack - a lot. He believes that AGI will be simple in terms of code. GUT is supposed to be simple too. People will probably say AGI = GUT quite soon, pretending we have the key to the universe (egomania?).
I spent hours with chatGPT yesterday. I ask very specific questions and it gives me very precise answers tailored to my question. Seems like it's reasoning. Seems like general intelligence.
Happy Sunday.
.. which is a long winded way of saying free will is hogwash. GUT disproves free will.
I don't really believe in science. It works for us but F=MA is not a "law" that the natural world obeys it's simply a relationship that allows us to predict things effectively from a human perspective. Newtonian physics is basically supplanted by Relativity yet we still use it. It would be foolish (egomaniac) to think there are no better explanations, ones that don't use math as we know it, which a human invention. Our world is a product of our senses - which are censored.
Heisenbergs uncertainty principle is a result of his specific methodology aka fudged mathematical equations. What is a photon? A massless particle that bounces around at the speed of light. From Narnia delivered by the tooth fairy. It's made up to satisfy equations that got out of hand and to publish papers. Scientists pretending they discovered something but actually it's made up. If we didn't have eyes we wouldn't have invented photons. Does God have eyes? ....
I see parallels in AGI and GUT - the Grand Unified Theorem. Neither are universal both are specific to humans otherwise we would not be able to detect let alone comprehend them. We are looking for answers we can understand. Anyway.
I don't really like Lex Fridman but I do like John Carmack - a lot. He believes that AGI will be simple in terms of code. GUT is supposed to be simple too. People will probably say AGI = GUT quite soon, pretending we have the key to the universe (egomania?).
I spent hours with chatGPT yesterday. I ask very specific questions and it gives me very precise answers tailored to my question. Seems like it's reasoning. Seems like general intelligence.
Happy Sunday.
Post automatically merged:
.. which is a long winded way of saying free will is hogwash. GUT disproves free will.
ElPoco
Hardcore Member
My take is that human creativity is just a "mechanical" process. There's no magic, everything that's involved is electrical and chemical reactions in the brain (and very possibly the rest of the body to some extent). So we could imagine having a machine that more or less replicates this.
However, what makes art interesting is that it's a human being (possibly another animal but that's another topic) expressing something personal. Everything, from the choice of the medium to the individual word/paint stroke/chord/etc. is a (not necessarily conscious) decision that this human made to express what they wanted to.
And as a human being, I can react to this from my own experience. So art is a connection between two (or more) human beings. Remove the human from one side and you're missing something.
That landscape painting might be beautiful, but if there's no intention behind it (except maybe making money), it's as much art as what's on an advertising billboard. And this is made worse by the fact that the AI generators will generally output the "most likely" picture that matches the prompt, so you get kind of a bland, average, consensual piece.
There is the question of whether the prompt is enough to give it the artistic intent and make it truly a human expression, but I think there are too few actual human decision in the final product. Unless there's a bit more work, like manually reworking the generated image, or fine-tuning the prompt to get the exact picture you have in your mind.
But in any case I'd rather have a crude drawing from someone who can't draw really well than a beautiful AI generated image, because that crude drawing will have much more of the human behind it than the generated image.
However, what makes art interesting is that it's a human being (possibly another animal but that's another topic) expressing something personal. Everything, from the choice of the medium to the individual word/paint stroke/chord/etc. is a (not necessarily conscious) decision that this human made to express what they wanted to.
And as a human being, I can react to this from my own experience. So art is a connection between two (or more) human beings. Remove the human from one side and you're missing something.
That landscape painting might be beautiful, but if there's no intention behind it (except maybe making money), it's as much art as what's on an advertising billboard. And this is made worse by the fact that the AI generators will generally output the "most likely" picture that matches the prompt, so you get kind of a bland, average, consensual piece.
There is the question of whether the prompt is enough to give it the artistic intent and make it truly a human expression, but I think there are too few actual human decision in the final product. Unless there's a bit more work, like manually reworking the generated image, or fine-tuning the prompt to get the exact picture you have in your mind.
But in any case I'd rather have a crude drawing from someone who can't draw really well than a beautiful AI generated image, because that crude drawing will have much more of the human behind it than the generated image.
kuru
Who the heck is Stephan Kramer?
godot oof
Null
Snug
This is exactly what my (professional) artist friend said - it's all about human taste. The context was electronic music.
Consider John Lennon, universally praised a creative genius but if you ask him he's just plagiarizing Chuck Berry.
Didn't the woke movement backfire? It's viewed as selfish & antisocial here in London. We are not sexist, racist, homophobic or any of that.
Last edited:
Null
Snug
For all the Lego perverts fans out there.
inv.nadeko.net
ASMR : FRED'S RELAXING LEGO BUILDS - Invidious
inv.nadeko.net
kuru
Who the heck is Stephan Kramer?
kuru
Who the heck is Stephan Kramer?
Not one of those bikers, no. I ride alone and I am not a fan of lawless parallel societies.
I do agree that I am a bit weird and somewhat smelly though. And I hope to score some Molly for New Year's Eve
I do agree that I am a bit weird and somewhat smelly though. And I hope to score some Molly for New Year's Eve
My friend doesn't have a playstation anymore because he thinks the PS5 doesn't have many good games. How can this be? I know that PS1/2/3 each had tons of great, unique games. But I kinda agree, the PS4 doesn't inspire me. One explanation is that since games are getting so expensive to produce studios need investors and basically sell creative control. Not just creative control, everything gets steered differently. Venture vultures described above are a clear case and actually they affect all kinds of businesses. In order to have any chance at all you must be heavily funded and bow to scumsuckers who care nothing about the art. Games used to be driven by exceptional ideas and/or coding skills.
ElPoco
Hardcore Member
Private equity is destroying pretty much everything it touches, and it's touching pretty much everything (especially in the US, but it's happening in the EU as well)
Null
Snug
kuru
Who the heck is Stephan Kramer?
I recall ranting over search engines recently. Best alternative I've found so far is https://www.perplexity.ai/
First AI that had me take notes instead of blood pressure medication after getting an answer.
First AI that had me take notes instead of blood pressure medication after getting an answer.
Maybe AI's are popular because search is so bad? Google steers everything to adverts and youtube.
But now chatGPT seems to be returning a lot of m$-centric answers.
Seems like they are using AI to rewrite history and steer opinion. Double-think.
LLM's could be the ultimate echo chamber.
But now chatGPT seems to be returning a lot of m$-centric answers.
Seems like they are using AI to rewrite history and steer opinion. Double-think.
LLM's could be the ultimate echo chamber.
Last edited:
Similar threads
