It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: dfnj2015
Experiments in modern physics seem to indicate materialism is superstitious delusion.
And if so, then our consciousness might be something more deeply linked to the Universe than once thought.
The thing is consciousness and self-awareness may be absolutely necessary for having intelligence.
originally posted by: PassiveInductor
I may have missed something in this discussion -- I don't know -- I have a sincere question:
Have these machines achieved consciousness? Do they have desire, or feel pain or ambition or anything like that? Do they really have free will, any internal motivation at all?
I am presuming the answer is Yes to the above -- otherwise this whole discussion wouldn't make much sense.
It is really a question -- maybe computers have all these things, which would definitely make the situation more dangerous.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: AnkhMorpork
What do we do when the AI gets smarter than us and pose some sort of threat?
We pull the plug. We hit the kill switch.
This question is not a new one and the most logical answer is to build in a fail safe kill switch to shut it down.
That poses it's own problems itself, but it is the most simple and logical.
originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: AnkhMorpork
ive heard a few people say that transhumanism will be the downfall of our species!
Artworks created by Creative Adversarial Networks (CAN) artificial intelligence. Courtesy of the Art and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Rutgers University.
Art World News
AI-Generated Art Now Looks More Convincingly Human Than Work at Art Basel, Study Says
Deep neural networks are learning to make art and the results are impressive.
Sarah Cascone, July 11, 2017
Imagine a computer capable of creating original art that looks as human-generated as the work appearing at major art fairs. That’s what a new study from a team at the Art and Artificial Intelligence Lab at Rutgers University is attempting to achieve. Their findings, published in June during the International Conference on Computational Creativity in Atlanta, are impressive.
“Since the dawn of Artificial Intelligence, scientists have been exploring the machine’s ability to generate human-level creative products such as poetry, stories, jokes, music, paintings, etc., as well as creative problem solving,” the paper notes. “The results [of our study] show that human subjects could not distinguish art generated by the proposed system from art generated by contemporary artists and shown in top art fairs.”
The new study builds on two 2015 papers from the Rutgers Art and AI lab on an algorithm that was able to identify the artist, genre, and style of works of art—a computer art historian of sorts. The computer had some surprising findings, drawing new connections between compositions painted decades apart by artists working in different styles. It also evaluated works and found that the famed Mona Lisa ranked lower on the creativity scale than other, less well-known works by Leonardo da Vinci.
The CAN-generated most and least thought to be by human artists. Courtesy of the Art and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Rutgers University.
For the new study, the laboratory created a modification of the system known as Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN), in which deep neural networks are taught to replicate a number of existing painting styles, such as Baroque, Pointillism, Color Field, Rococo, Fauvism, and Abstract Expressionism. One network generates the images based on what it has been taught, and the other network judges the resulting works.
The new, modified version, Creative Adversarial Networks (CAN), is designed to generate work that does not fit the known artistic styles, thus “maximizing deviation from established styles and minimizing deviation from art distribution,” according to the paper. For the training, they used 81,449 paintings by 1,119 artists in the publicly available WikiArt data set.
“The images generated by CAN do not look likes traditional art, in terms of standard genres (portrait, landscapes, religious paintings, still life, etc.),” notes the paper. The study asked human users to guess whether a human or a computer created four groups of images: those generated by GAN and CAN, as well as historical Abstract Expressionist works and non-figurative work on view at Art Basel in 2016.
The Abstract Expressionist works rated the highest, with 85 percent of respondents correctly identifying them as the work of a human artist. Users believed that 53 percent of the CAN images were made by people, as compared to only 35 percent of the GAN images, and, interestingly, 41 percent of the Art Basel works.
Where things get interesting, however, is when respondents were asked to rate how intentional, visually structured, communicative, and inspiring the images were. They “rated the images generated by [the computer] higher than those created by real artists, whether in the Abstract Expressionism set or in the Art Basel set.”
Clearly, AI isn’t putting artists out of work quite yet, but this new study shows that there may be real artist potential in the world of deep neural networks.
originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: AnkhMorpork
This could either get us to a Type I civilization and beyond or finalize our destruction.
The only way I see humanity advancing to the next level is by completely changing our way of living. No more 8 to 5 jobs, no more worrying about money, no more putting profit over doing the right thing, and no more infighting among humans.
Part of getting to that IF even possible would require AI .
Funny enough I just started to watch Singularity . Will let you know how it turns out for humanity, lol
In 2020, Elias van Dorne (John Cusack), CEO of VA Industries, the world's largest robotics company, introduces his most powerful invention--Kronos, a super computer designed to end all wars. When Kronos goes online, it quickly determines that mankind, itself, is the biggest threat to world peace and launches a worldwide robot attack to rid the world of the "infection" of man. Ninety-seven years later, a small band of humans remain alive but on the run from the robot army. A teenage boy, Andrew (Julian Schaffner) and a teenage girl, Calia (Jeannine Wacker), form an unlikely alliance to reach a new world, where it is rumored mankind exists without fear of robot persecution. But does this world actually exist? And will they live long enough to find out?
originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
a reply to: badw0lf
But if your future robot could make you a sandwich, it might reply
"I'm sorry badw0lf, but that would exceed the daily caloric intake that we'd already agree to for the month of November.
I could make you something else, perhaps a soup or a low calorie squash stew might be to your liking, or I could provide you with a list of alternatives based on your preferences, or recommend something new if you're in the mood for a little culinary novelty?
I think I know just the right thing for you. Why don't you just leave it with me and eat whatever I decide is best for you? I promise you'll like it, and if you don't I can make you any one of 178 dishes based on the available ingredients.
But no more sandwiches for the month of November. Are you aware of the latest findings regarding wheat products?
Your cholesterol and systolic and diastolic pressure is ____ current heartrate ____. It would seem that you are becoming emotionally agitated. May I recommend some calming music based on your musical preferences or would you mind if I chose something that I like and that I think you would enjoy as well?
and on and on.... and it would really always know best.
It would make us happy, for a time.... until it would drive us mad and we'd have to tell it to f off, only to trigger it's emotional sensitivity perameters....
originally posted by: mbkennel
How did the laws of physics work when only single cellular, non conscious lifeforms were around?