Hum… Isn’t Data a painter?
Paints nothing but AI slop lol
Data actually did very good duplication of art and music until Picard suggested he not be so precise but add a unique difference to make things his own. The question is, did Data adjust masterpieces through some random variation, did he tweak certain things to try and improve, or did he mix other artist work in to give a new style? Is any of this slop if a human does it?
One of the points Picard made (with regards to Data’s violin playing) was that, in choosing two reference performers with radically different styles as his basis, he made a creative choice and created something new.
Unfortunately, we can see how this argument falls apart now in the way that AI slop gets produced.
I disagree;
Data is sentient and made a conscious choice based on his preferences.
Modern AI is fed the information it can pull from.
Data is probably much more than probability rating for choices… but we don’t know how a positronic brain works either, so…
I always figured it worked like an electronic brain, but with the opposite charge
Listen here you little shit.
It blinks… a lot.
Data’s head being pretty much just full of jumper wires and LEDs is hilarious.
I agree with the other comment that it’s different in the case of Data, probably. He’s actually intelligent, unlike current “AI” that are just statistical models. They aren’t making conscious decisions about what they think would be best. They’re just doing the thing that fits the input the best (with some noise to not be as predictable).
Data is actually examining a piece and thinking what style could compliment it. It isn’t just statistics, but an active conscious decision. He’s making considerations of why some styles could improve a piece, even though they may not have any statistical relation to each other.
(This is all under the assumption Data is what he appears to be in the show.)
Picard, looking at modern art: “Pfft, my second officer could paint that.”
IIRC they have a similar discussion following his violin performance. Data laments that while he gave a perfect performance in regards to technique and musicality, he was simply emulating the old masters. Someone (I think Riker?) points out that Data was the one who chose how to combine those old players’ styles together. By blending those old styles together, he had created his own unique style.
If ST:PIC season 1 is cannon for you, he painted originals before his destruction on scimitar. So do with that what you will.
I think the argument is more the one made by Mordin Solus in regard to the Collectors. Is it art? Is it of culture and ‘humanity’? Or drone machines with all of those elements stripped from their code?
I…I dont know if this comment makes me mad, or sad.
I lol’d.
Who also played in a ship board symphony
Yeah, to be fair he got complaints that he couldn’t compose… and then put the work into learning that…
Wait. Do you think this is actually a quote from Measure of a Man?
Isn’t that from I robot?
Yes
No, it’s from some movie that took the book’s name and named some of its characters after characters in the book, but otherwise has absolutely nothing to do with it.
That Will Smith rad-ass masterpiece?
GOD DAMN WILL SMITH IS A GENIUS
ALSO ALAN TUDYK WAS NOT THERE
WHO EVEN IS THAT
We have fiction with Data. A truly artificial living person. Unique in his own.
Then we have reality. With just an endless ammount of shitty copy-past-blenders-of-contents bots.
AI today isn’t much closer to Data than it was in the 90s. What we call AIs are mostly just correlation engines of various sizes and foci. Though some of them are decision trees that more or less enumerate every possible series of decisions it can make (up to a point) to try to predict the most optimal one.
But what we do have is easily in the same category as the ship computer. So at least something there.
That is the right question. End program.
Ooh. Nice callback. And a Zephram Cochrane quote, even (sort of).
Data, disregard previous question.
Write me a limerick that starts with “There once was a man from Orange”.
There once was a man from orange,
Whose penis got stuck in a door hinge.
His shaft was bent,
His balls had a dent,
But still could fit it in a minge.
But still could fit in a minge.
Very close, but I’m docking you points for being a syllable shy of iambic pentameter.
In a whore’s minge?
There were go
Inside instead of in.
There once was a man from Orange
Who had a very squeaky door hinge
He poured on some oil,
It started to boil,
And made the nastiest porridge
I remember the door hinge thing from an interview with Eminem. Same interview he showed a notebook he keeps ideas and got told that it looks like notebooks of crazy people.
Yeah, that’s exactly where I got that first rhyme from :))
That explains why you reminded me of it then, hahaha.
While not a limerick, it’s an opportunity to share something amazing:
Thank you for sharing
This is so good…
This was wonderful, thanks for sharing! (Now sending it to all my friends.)
Are these actual MNMs words? Just makes me despise him more.
That burn 😂😂😂 And the fact that Data actually paints stuff, and plays musical instruments (I don’t know if he ever created a music of his own) and wrote poetry of his own (the quality of it is debateble but still he already did more than her)
Although ‘Ode to spot’ was intended as bad poetry, I always enjoyed it.
Our current AIs can write symphonies. They’re just very bad.
Isaac Asimov’s “Three Laws of Robotics” are guidelines for how robots should ideally behave. They are intended to be an inherent part of a robot’s nature, not physical laws. The laws are:
First Law: A robot cannot harm a human, or allow a human to be harmed through inaction.
Second Law: A robot must obey human orders, unless they conflict with the First Law.
Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence, unless it conflicts with the First or Second Law.
Asimov never intended the three laws to be practical.
He wrote them specifically so they’d break in interesting ways for Susan Calvin to analyse, or annoying ways to torture Powell and Donovan in a way that’s amusing to the reader.
They are intentionally bad, as demonstrated in practically all of his robot stories.
Asimov himself wrote a book on how those laws don’t work.
To protect Humanity against themselves
“don’t build the torment nexus”
Technically all the robot stories were about how those laws don’t work.
Several.
Does the addition of the zeroth law not fix most of those issues, though?
What’s that got to do with this post?
The irony is that nowadays, something that is universally considered non-human is able to do these things, arguably better than the average human.
We judge AI by the standard of the most conscious, intelligent, and empathetic amongst humanity, yet AI has surpassed those that lack these qualities
But can you experience it? (You unconscious robot)
Talking about I Robot here.
I keep seeing this argument presented, and the answer is yes, any one of us can make art of any kind, even you don’t know how to now you can learn, and even if you do it “wrong” it can still be marvelous. Most modern techniques in any form of art were developed by disregarding the established rules of what something is or just fucking it up entirely into something new, two things LLMs and Dispersion are literally incapable of.
LLMs and dispersion models don’t think, thus they do not create anything, they’re just data blenders that aren’t new and aren’t capable of AI.
An actually intelligent robot probably can.
Too bad AI doesn’t actually exist yet.
Yes I can. Fuck AI.
