Katherine, I like what you’ve said, but I have one question (sort of related to what Joerge said in an earlier post). Who decides what inventions, art or marketing ideas are “good” or “advances” or even “useful”? My grandchildren think that Angry Birds is great, but I think it’s a waste of time. I wouldn’t give you two cents for a Monet, but then, I’m a troglodyte. Guy From: Katherine Warman Kern <
">
> Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 07:00:45 -0500 To: Graham Hill < "> >, Gmail < "> > Cc: ProjectVRM list < "> > Subject: [projectvrm] so what is art. Graham, The ability of a machine to replicate choices humans have made in the past (associated color with emotion, for example) is achieving "some kind of sentience," no doubt. Today, much of the art made by humans is also formulaic. I think there’s been some discussion here (maybe it was somewhere else) about the distinction between innovation and invention. Iconic inventors describe it as an unexpected outcome. Most improvisers would say the same thing. And the marketing “icons” I’ve met would agree behind the scenes (when not making a pitch or writing a Harvard Business School Case study) that the ideas that moved mountains were as much a surprise to them as they were to everyone else. Starting with a framework of knowledge and the skill that comes with practice is essential. But I think most truly change-making inventors, artists, marketers, etc. (if there are any still alive today) would tell you with all humility that there is also an energy that moved them to make unexplainable even irrational choices that seemed totally benign at the time but led to a breakthrough. Maybe the ideal is a machine that provides the creator with all the choices based on existing framework of knowledge and highest skill level to accelerate the learning curve a creator goes through to conceive the choice neither the machine nor the creator expected. Meanwhile, the maker movement – the idea of actually making stuff with your hands - is an opportunity to discover there are still unexpected choices out there. Integrating art into it makes total sense from my experience. For example, I never gave a hoot about chemistry until I wanted to learn how to experiment with pottery glazes – I get and remember chemistry in context much better than I did in the abstract. All this is moving in right direction. But we also need a new business model to support experienced inventors, artists, and creative marketing professionals so more kids aspire to do it. K- From: Graham Hill <
">
> Date: Friday, February 7, 2014 at 4:53 AM To: Gmail < "> > Cc: ProjectVRM list < "> > Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Personal = Sovereign Hi Erik It is probably only a matter of time before machines achieve some kind of sentience. Already machines are capable of creating improvised art (that most ordinary humans cannot). At the moment a machine becomes sentient, your metaphysical point is moot. It probably already is. Best regards from Edinburgh, Graham On 6 Feb 2014, at 23:30, Gmail <
">
> wrote:
-- Dr. Graham Hill UK +44 7564 122 633 DE +49 170 487 6192 Partner Optima Partners Senior Associate Nyras Capital |
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.