Again about AI vs art: how do you measure quality?

Varujan Pambuccian continues the discussion about AI vs. art. With a practical case study: a comparison between a simple AI generated picture, vs a complex (more) intentional design.

The interesting question is how do you measure quality and emotion in art. Sure, there is a difference between the two drawings, but it's almost impossible to say which one is better, or which evokes more emotion. At first glance, I was much more moved by the simpler one. Then I was surprised to find out that, in fact, the other one was more labor-intensive.

Of course, an army of artists is now vociferating against AI, claiming that it’s not art. But what is art? What counts as art? There is no definition or measure. No artist has the capacity or the right to define what art is and what it is not.

But this discussion is not new. This debate also existed around naive painting, and art created by children, or randomly created art, about Dadaism, or about colors randomly thrown on a canvas.

So I maintain the position that AI is a tool. It can be a simpler or a more complex tool. But it is a tool. Made by people, used by people, displayed and interpreted by people.

A brief history of the glorification of the past

One day, when I will be old and wise, I will study philosophy and socio-psychology, and my research topic will be the myth of the glorious past. The rosy retrospection syndrome, "neiges d'antan."

Another topic might be the study of happiness, but this correlates dangerously well with depression.

Because we have at least 4,000 years of documented history of glorification of the past. Probably the first hieroglyph written by the first Egyptian scribe was about how things were better "in the old days." And the last story told by the last Neanderthal was likely about "today's decadent Sapiens civilization and their decline compared to the moral values of our Homo Erectus ancestors."

On the other hand, when I will be older and wiser, I will most likely write an essay about the decline of the modern world.

Is it important to develop universal humanoid robots?

Why is it important to develop universal humanoid robots?

At first glance, the humanoid form seems expensive and inefficient for robots assigned to perform simple, clear jobs. Asimov addressed this issue exceptionally well. The question is: Is it more efficient to make a specialized, self-driving tractor, or to make a humanoid robot that drives a tractor? Obviously, it is much more efficient and much cheaper to make a self-driving tractor. It doesn't need to be very intelligent, nor does it require so many joints and articulations.

But the question ignores the current ubiquitous reality: we already have millions of tractors that are NOT automated, but are instead built to be operated by humans, ergonomically and functionally. 

All the hundreds of billions of devices around us are intended to be used by humans; including light switches, garage doors, remote controls, shovels, stairs, elevators, bells, pens, phones, traffic lights, buckets, wells, sinks, screw drivers and wrenches.

So, the real question is: Would it be cheaper and more efficient to embed specialized intelligence in each of these billions of objects around us, or would it be cheaper to build a universal robot with a human form, capable of using them ALL?

Yes, it's relevant to build universal humanoid robots.

Don't win any contest

Some competitions are not worth winning, or participating. You shouldn't compete in lower categories; winning would disgrace you.

You know, the lion doesn't need to win competitions to be king.

This is why some competitions have only 30-40 applicants, the winner is unknown; winning is a sign of weakness.

In other news: no Eurovision song winner ever made the top10 US charts in 50 years, since Abba's 1974 Waterloo. There were 3 songs that made it before.

Eurovision is of course a solid event and contest, that has rewarded incredible songs and singers such as Abba, Céline Dion, Lara Fabian or Gigliola Cinquetti. Great many other songs/artists participated and lost, such as Domenico Modugno, France Gall, and even Abba.

Surely, you wouldn't see Queen, Beatles or Michael Jackson compete in Eurovision.

Villeneuve's Dune doesn't know if it is more like a book, or like a movie

There are authors like Frank Herbert and Philip K. Dick whose books are very difficult to make into a movie. Villeneuve proves this again with Dune. 

It is a nice movie. But it's not quite the book, and it's also not very different or new from the book.

Movies need action, and very often books have deeper messages. Dune the book is a metaphor about human society, about manipulation and power. It has very little technology. The action scenes are difficult to imagine or depict, e.g. the riding (or dismounting) of the worms, or the knife duels with force shields, or space travel based on spice tanks.

Having read the books a few times, the action is very predictable to me. With every reading, you find more subtleties and depths in the book. You cannot put these in a movie, otherwise you come up with a Tarkovski, and nobody watches.

Interestingly, there are quite a few great Philip K. Dick movies, but their secret is probably that they are mostly action, and didn't try to be a lot more. E.g. Minority Report, Blade Runner, Adjustment Bureau, Paycheck.

Dune is much more difficult to transform into an action movie, because the action doesn't make a lot of sense without the metaphors behind, and movie metaphors are different than book metaphors.

 The movie tries a little bit too much to be a book, while also being a movie.