where's jig's daily question?? ;0

hehe sorry i'm name-dropping someone out-of-turn. still... ;0 legit q isn't it?

anyhow i had a random thought earlier today i thought mebbe worthy of posting in this style...

if/when, someday, a software/computer/robot can produce and perform -its own- original artisitic work, say for example a glenn-gouldish piano extraordinaire work, entirely original - entirely machine-generated - would you, or could you whole-heartedly applaud its live performance by its 'creator'?? (and perhaps, would ya actually be offended that i just used quote marks?? :0)

just a strange thought i had; just curious if anyone else has a take on it... :0

Sounds a bit like an elaboration on the Turing Test for artificial intelligence, especially as "art" is, in a sense, nothing more than a highly specialized form of communication.

I'd applaud the maker of the machine. I don't applaud machines . . . at least until they prove themselves capable of more than mere "intelligence."

Not applauding machines makes baby robot Jesus cry.

I most certainly would applaud - assuming I had hands, but would I be applauding the machine or the programmer?

I think machines are coming closer to making genuinely interesting compositions, if not entirely original ones yet. Not ground breaking ones anyway. But some are quite beautiful.

Visual art would be a bit harder - the machines might have to start understanding art speak, and NOBODY understands that.

[ETA: This was a pretty good daily Jig question.]

lol oh - i guess, i think the original machine itself has passed turing test. think sttng's 'data' - though i hate to over-andoid the mental picture of the question. lol picture an old altair maybe sitting at the piano chair... dunno, maybe it's more a 'turing-type test' of the public's societal acceptance of robotic minds at all. ;0

if the android is, consciously, for all intents and purposes, like data - truly responsive and affable to human communication, but completely devoid of 'creative thought' or intent - for all intents and purposes, be given an 'artistic subbank' imbued with software that gives it a creative mind, but without 'preformed' sequences, save for its memory as it takes in entire catalogs of music in a sitting, bach to beatles (to beck)... ;0 it creates and forms compositions and maybe even entirely new genres of music, 'all on its own' effectively, for its its base programming and 'fresh memory bank' to work from.

oh, and continually-hypothetically, the creator were already long gone, say by two hundred years. ;0 other words, effectively 'like a baby' in terms of musical/creative growth or exploration; it might be an otherwise ready-to-go pre-programmed adult human android that 'discovers its artistic side'. would you - well, 'buy it'?? funny suddenly finding i wasn't looking to come to that wording, but yeah perhaps literally, that's the point - would you pay to attend an original artistic performance like this, by an artistically inclined robot? say even a cd - sorry, anachronistic ;0 dl of such work?

gosh would robots need income? ;0

;0 thanks suzanne!! (for your useful sig!! ;0
lol gosh and thansk too weston

i heard Jig was going to be traveling for a couple days..so it should be pretty quiet around here till day after tomorrow heheheheh

It would depend.

If the machine was sentient, as well as capable of making an original work, then yes, I would applaud the work's creator (no quote marks).

Nonsentient machines/algorithms have already made "original works" of literature, poetry, music, and graphic art. However, they are not aware of the act of creation, or indeed, self aware. In this case, I admire the cleverness of the *machine's* creator, but don't applaud the machine. It would be like thanking a hay baler for doing a good job.

This question wasn't judgmental enough.

Best believe she will catch up.

This.

So far, there are not likely to be any sentient man-made machines. We're not quite up to the insect brain level. We have systems more complicated than insect brains, but none that are equivalent in either self-organization during development or generic problem solving ability.

How do we detect sentience? That's a tough one. The Turing test is the best bet, but I believe it's possible to build a program that would fool most people yet wouldn't be termed intelligent by those who study intelligence (or even the program's creators). And intelligence may not be sufficient for sentience.

On the other hand, I suspect there's sentience in places where we don't expect or look for it, i.e., Hobbe's Leviathan.