How far is too far

>mfw all artists who worked to animate the movie below could be replaced by a script now

youtube.com/watch?v=47h6pQ6StCk

Artists are always on suicide watch. Nothing new.

This technology will simply make artists more productive.

>implying artists don't feed on "negative" emotions and experience to make their work

Ironically this will only make them stronger in that it now gives them a reason to make two new movements one for art automation and one against automation.

This. Artfag here. Figuring out how to package this thing for Archlinux. My job is about to get a lot easier.

>Artfag who uses Arch instead of fucking macshit

You're one of the good ones user. Thank you for existing.

>artfag
post your stuff

Not really -- give it enough time and it will be an admin/programmer pushing a button for a robot artist to start creating stuff better than any other human

True, but now we will have a few very talented, highly paid artists instead of lots of mediocre artists. Automation turns the industry into winner-takes-all.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does change the change the dynamic

The thing is nothing the robot can make will be original. It will be based on an algorithm. So sure you can make the algorithm produce random results but still, those random results are based on more algorithms. Humans will still have art jobs but like this guy said but there will be less of them for sure.

>those random results are based on more algorithms

Not if we use background radiation signals as an input.

Hello darkness my old friend...

>So sure you can make the algorithm produce random results but still, those random results are based on more algorithms.
So just like humans?

>>True, but now we will have a few very talented, highly paid artists instead of lots of mediocre artists.
Doesn't really follow. It will make art more accessible to more people. Potentially talented people who didn't have the time or patience to master the technical skills will play ball as well, so we'll have even more talented artists. Technical skill is just a hindrance that keeps unskilled creative people back

>artfag
>Arch
What the fuck am I reading?

neural networks are programmed identically to neurological processes, so if you are saying they are based solely on algorithms then you are saying a human artist's creations are as well

>neural networks are programmed identically to neurological processes
rofl

nice rebuttal

not him but you're completely retarded. neural nets are FAR FAR FAR FUCKING FAR away from being IDENTICAL to their biological counterparts. they're an incredibly huge simplification. tard no one even knows how the biological counterparts are programmed

it's not worth it

read a book you retard

the only difference is the setup of the network, neuron by neuron they are identical

this guy is right

in what way are they simplified?

read a book

I bet you believe humans don't have free will. Please leave.

...

please stop samefagging
i'm just asking a simple question and if you don't have an answer then you're obviously more ignorant than I am on the subject

>(you)

>applying a filter
>""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""art"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I MAD, fucking media spreading misinfo again, holy shit how can they be wrong every single time?

> you're obviously more ignorant than I am
except im doing my master's in machine learning with a focus on neural computing lel. read hodgkin and huxley (1952)

Machines will always be great at copying. Finding one that "creates", now that's the real challenge

>butthurt artfag sperging out

every fucking nerd on the internet and their mother is doing a phd in machine learning these days, particularly when they're trying to win internet points

can't you at least give me a summary of the differences? it doesn't seem that paper proves anything other than a more direct underlying explanation, but it still seems to act the same as a single programmed neuron

kek'd

one which board are we again?

point is that hodgkin and huxley, izhikevich, and other models attempt to create a closer copy to the biological neural nets (not identical, because we don't understand them enough to be able to model them identically, so that's out of the question), but they've been largely unsuccessful for practical applications. on the other hand, simplified versions that don't take into account spike rate/timing, ion channels, and other biological details perform a lot better. ibm tried to push their hardware based on spiking neural nets (north something) and got 0 attention because they don't work. saying that neural nets "are programmed identically to neurological processes" is ridiculous

well I guess that's a little closer to what I was looking for, thanks

In terms of my original argument, programmed identically or not, the workings of the brain can be described "algorithmically" so to say art will never be created by an ANN is almost definitely not true

What's a good book to understand
a) how this roughly works
b) (possibly another book) what works and where it can be used
?

Until some faggot ayy lmao hipster comes along and declares the ruins of our civilization his readymade art piece.

haykin (2009) is often recommended as an introductory book (my undergrad intro to neural nets was based on this and beale and jackson (1990)) and for deep nets goodfellow et al released a book this year, but you can also try the online course provided by karpathy and fei fei cs231n (though it was recently removed but there are torrents floating around see reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/4hqwza/andrej_karpathy_forced_to_take_down_stanford/ )

anyway gotta go back to studying

thx.

Found deep learning online, and also it's readable online here
deeplearningbook.org/

PS I'd argue the guy has a narrowly focused intelligence if he puts up unattractive pics of his on each outlet I encounter. People are shallow, you wanna get somewhere so put some minimal effort into it

>narrowly focused intelligence
Is this an actual thing?

Yeah, it's a defense mechanisms used to discredit more intelligent people