The Future of Photography

[dwdallam]

When is Adobe going to provide this feature in Photoshop? Such technology could be very useful for copying and pasting cut-outs into a different environment and lighting situation.   
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208317\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Damn right Ray! I for one am tired of taking my own images. If we can create them in PS, we could create anything we want in our living rooms.

But more seriously, I think the way copyright laws are written, you can right now do something like this:

1. Buy image of a bridge you really like, such as the Golden Gate in San Francisco.

2. Buy landscape of what you really like, such as half dome in Yosemite by Ansel Adams.

3. Buy landscape of an airport you really like.

4. Change all images by at least 30% to create this:

Composite the images so you have the Golden Gate bridge across from the Ahwahnee Hotel. Then paste the airport on top of Half Dome.

Title the new image "PROGRESS!" and sell it as your own.

[dwdallam]

You are potentially right about the prospect of machines recreating photo shoots.  But.... There are essentially two schools of thought (there may actually be more, i'm no expert) concerning Artificial Intelligence and whether it will ever be possible to develop human-like machine intelligence.  Without any invocation of god, to be sure, there are many highly respected scientists and philosophers who believe that it will never happen.  Equally there are many in the other camp.  In my (very) limited understanding of it, it's got something to do with quantum physics, something to do with NP Problems (anyone remember those?!?), and some other stuff I either can't remember or can't understand.

Sorry, not very informative reply, but might give some of you a point for getting into this further.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208293\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm not aware of any legitimate arguments that support the idea we could not create such machines. But that doesn't mean much. I've been out of the loop for a while. If you are all interested, I could ask a couple of philosophy professors that still practice. They "may" know either how I can get the information, or have it outright.

[dwdallam]

I fail to understand why the proof of the negativity of a possible future is required to start thinking about it.

For me the possibility of future negative consequences is enough of a case to start worrying.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208318\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You don't even have to go that far. All you need is a "plausible" argument. The reason we need an argument--not necessarily scientific proof--is that if we don't, then everyone's position is equally valid, simply because they are equally unsupported. True, even an unsupported idea might be valid in argument form, but we have no idea if it is or is not until it is formed into something testable, either an argument or scientific proof, or both!

But even w/o any of the above, definitely the subject is worth thinking about and developing. I didn't mean stop thinking about the possibility of negative aspects at all. Skepticism is where it all begins.

[dwdallam]

There is a simple - simplistic? - problem to all this which is seldom considered seriously. A machine doesn´t need emotional or status comforting. People do. Take away the human needs for identity and nothing will get done. Neither, of course, do machines spend money, thus ceasing to provide the base function of production.

No human needs or input and the nett result is silence in the workplace and the banks long broken...

Rob C, in a hurry and off for a quick pre-prandial drink!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208327\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

LOL,

But the point is actually "if" we could create machines that have emotional and logical abilities, that is, be as human and better. . . ."

[dwdallam]

My position is that all intelligence is artificial.  Cockroaches will inherit the fruits of human intelligence - sooner rather than later, it would seem.  Have a nice day.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208332\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Cockroaches are sweet. I mean they are "smart" for little biological machines. They all look the same though.

[dwdallam]

Why could we with teh help of machines not develop an "entity" that does have a sense of self? We don't have to call them machines.

Okay, I was in too much of a hurry to down that illicit glass of bubbly before lunch; now, with clear head and full belly I see that I should have been more precise!

The point I as trying to make is that machines are not people. It is only the human part of the equation that has the sentient need for life and the requirement to work and earn in order to sustain it (I appreciate there is also a sub-class of human that thinks differently, but that only survives as long as do the earners. This is also balanced, to an extent, by the other, super-affluent part of society that has need for neither work nor charity). Machines, left to themselves, have no need for anything at all; as they do not feel anything and do not have a sense of self, they have no wish for a salary. As they have no such wish and as they do not drop round to the local shops to buy anything, they do not further the supply of circulating money or credits, if you wish to quibble the semantics of cash v. card.

Ultimately, with no wealth being created, there is no money supply and thus no commerce, meaning no production of life-sustaining goods.

For many (meaning for me) the more automation in the factory or anywhere else, the less need for man to fulfil the rôle, and so on to subsequent unemployment which, taken to the finite, means total, world-wide idleness. And chaos.

How did we get onto this kick, anyway?

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208414\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[dwdallam]

I actually remember that article. I'm glad there are optimists like yourself. I have long ago given up optimism, even though I'm a member of the ACLU (I don't agree with everything they do, but I understand why they do it), Greenpeace, Sierra Club, National Wildlife Defense Council, Southern Poverty Law Center, and several others. I guess that's a sort of optimism.

Thanks for reminding me of that article.

You may be interested in the essay by Bill Joy in Wired magazine back in the 20th century - Why the future doesn't need us..

"Do you remember the beautiful penultimate scene in Manhattan where Woody Allen is lying on his couch and talking into a tape recorder? He is writing a short story about people who are creating unnecessary, neurotic problems for themselves, because it keeps them from dealing with more unsolvable, terrifying problems about the universe.

He leads himself to the question, "Why is life worth living?" and to consider what makes it worthwhile for him: Groucho Marx, Willie Mays, the second movement of the Jupiter Symphony, Louis Armstrong's recording of "Potato Head Blues," Swedish movies, Flaubert's Sentimental Education, Marlon Brando, Frank Sinatra, the apples and pears by Cézanne, the crabs at Sam Wo's, and, finally, the showstopper: his love Tracy's face.

Each of us has our precious things, and as we care for them we locate the essence of our humanity. In the end, it is because of our great capacity for caring that I remain optimistic we will confront the dangerous issues now before us."

EnJoy!!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208475\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[dwdallam]

But if this photographer replacement machine prophecy comes reality? You could always just take the red pill 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208530\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Laughed my ass off. That's right. "THE RED PILL."  hahaha. We should have a national Red Pill day.

[dwdallam]

Not to get off your overall topic, but I believe it was Kasparov beaten by Deep Blue.   He was the first reigning world chess champion to lose to a computer in a standard tournament game, and in 1997 was actually defeated in a match.

Was he really beaten by a machine?  All a computer does is allow programmers to do massively complex calculations.  As a case in point, one reason the program won the championship was the programmers changing code that prevented it from falling into a trap that Kasparov had taken advantage of twice ... something a human player would have picked up on.  There also is still a lot of rumors and accusations that human intervention occurred at other times during the match, and in fact IBM refused a rematch and retired the computer - many wondered what they were afraid of.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208534\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Wow that's really interesting. I wonder why they didn't want a rematch?  I'm not swaying this is why, but maybe it's because they thought it would be too depressing to think that Chess is only a numbers game--that is, there are a finite amount of moves to every problem. It's just a matter of cycling through them till you get the best move. In fact, that is what chess is.

I had a chess machine once and the instructions said something like that, that the computer would use all the time it needed to calculate the best move. You could set the time limit of the game and it would calculate how much time it could use per move.

[bernie west]

I'm not aware of any legitimate arguments that support the idea we could not create such machines. But that doesn't mean much. I've been out of the loop for a while. If you are all interested, I could ask a couple of philosophy professors that still practice. They "may" know either how I can get the information, or have it outright.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208583\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

From memory, the camps are basically split between those who believe the mind is nothing but a 'meat' processor and is algorithmic to the core, and those who believe that the mind is something more than algorithmic.  The 'more' part is handled by quantum physics I believe.  So, computers, algorithmic by design, may be unable to achieve human intelligence if the mind falls into the 'more than meat' category.  I might dig out some old books over the weekend and report back if I can clarify.

On the post by Rob C:  Rob would fall into the 'more than meat' school.  If computers aren't able to mimick human intelligence and consciousness, then they will never out evolve us.  Dwdwallam, I would assert that if a machine can't reach a conscious state it can't attain human intelligence, and I think this is the crux of what Rob is saying.

[dwdallam]

From memory, the camps are basically split between those who believe the mind is nothing but a 'meat' processor and is algorithmic to the core, and those who believe that the mind is something more than algorithmic.  The 'more' part is handled by quantum physics I believe.  So, computers, algorithmic by design, may be unable to achieve human intelligence if the mind falls into the 'more than meat' category.  I might dig out some old books over the weekend and report back if I can clarify.

On the post by Rob C:  Rob would fall into the 'more than meat' school.  If computers aren't able to mimick human intelligence and consciousness, then they will never out evolve us.  Dwdwallam, I would assert that if a machine can't reach a conscious state it can't attain human intelligence, and I think this is the crux of what Rob is saying.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208603\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

True, consciousness is the one element that distinguishes humans from all other known organism. I'm just not familiar with any research that says the brain is any different than any other problem solving machine.

[Stuarte]

If mankind comes up with a machine that's kinder, more compassionate, more empathic and more loving than humans, great.  What's not to like?

As for taking photographs, composing music, playing chess, playing tennis, speaking foreign languages or any of the other things in which I take an interest, I know with 99.999999999% certainty that at age 53, I will never do any of them well enough to rank in the top 1000 in my country, let alone in the world.  There are more than 6.8 BILLION humans out there, and the number is growing and my chances of getting near the top of any field of activity are shrinking.

So for me, whether the entities that do those activities better than me are humans or machines makes not a lot of difference.  What matters for me is the experience of doing those things, and interacting with others as I do them.  

As for the products of machines compared with the products of humans, similar considerations apply.  What counts for me is whether a photograph, or a piece of music or a piece of writing connects with me.  If a machine has produced it, then that's amazing.  

The prospect of machine-based governance (a la Terminator) is another issue.

[Rob C]

True, consciousness is the one element that distinguishes humans from all other known organism.

Madre de Dios! Have you never owned a dog?

Rob C

[dalethorn]

The problem in creating AI machines is we tend to define intelligence, or an intelligent entity, as "something like us".  So to reproduce that in a machine requires two things that are rarely discussed.  One, we need to feed the machine a lifetime of experience, or sensory input.  We're close now on the data storage requirements (i.e. a terabyte per day of life), but not close on how to acquire that data.  Two, we need to equip the machine with glands, to produce hormones, to give it incentives, drives, imperatives, etc.

[Ray]

True, consciousness is the one element that distinguishes humans from all other known organism.

Madre de Dios! Have you never owned a dog?

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208663\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's true, I believe. Ask a computer if the series 1,2,3,4 etc. has an ending, a final number, and it will not be able to answer without checking all numbers to infinity; 1 billion and one, one billion, trillion, trillion and one etc etc.

Of course, long before the computer reaches an answer, it will have broken down and burned out.

A 12 year old child could give the correct answer. The series has no ending.

[BernardLanguillier]

You don't even have to go that far. All you need is a "plausible" argument.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There you go:

[a href=\"http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12384]http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12384[/url]

Regards,
Bernard

[dalethorn]

There you go:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12384
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208884\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And there we go again - yet another stupendous conference on AI and others that completely ignores the obvious that I stated - that humans perform almost everything subconsciously, driven by glands (or glandular memories, "engrams"), and the remaining two percent of "conscious" behavior is almost entirely emotional and devoid of logic.  Take the "god spot" sometime and look at humans and their activities.  We don't have to fear machines, ever.  Our paranoia would preclude them ever getting an edge, even to the point of mutual annihilation.

[Ray]

There you go:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12384

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208884\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard,
When I read that article, I am reminded of converstaions I had with my school mates in England in the late 1950's, when America was aiming for the moon.

We figured that, by the end of the century we'd all have personal robots to do all the chores, and travelator pavements (sidewalks) in all the cities, that would make vehicular transport unnecessary.

It hasn't happened. I'm very disappointed. I sorely need a good robotic vacuum cleaner for my studio, but there are none sophisticated enough to navigate the tortuous layout of my floor space, not to mention the dusting of my computer equipment, wiping of monitor screen and cleaning of keyboard.

The problems are proving to be greater than we imagined.

[Rob C]

Bernard,
When I read that article, I am reminded of converstaions I had with my school mates in England in the late 1950's, when America was aiming for the moon.

We figured that, by the end of the century we'd all have personal robots to do all the chores, and travelator pavements (sidewalks) in all the cities, that would make vehicular transport unnecessary.

It hasn't happened. I'm very disappointed. I sorely need a good robotic vacuum cleaner for my studio, but there are none sophisticated enough to navigate the tortuous layout of my floor space, not to mention the dusting of my computer equipment, wiping of monitor screen and cleaning of keyboard.

The problems are proving to be greater than we imagined.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208903\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quo



Ray

The answer is simple: alter your workflow to suit the capabilities of the robot, just as you are supposed to do in order to make digital photography more efficient!

Rob C

[BernardLanguillier]

And there we go again - yet another stupendous conference on AI and others that completely ignores the obvious that I stated - that...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=208887\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Dale,

Really sorry, I should have figured that I had to re-read all your previous posts and other publications before posting here.

On this topic, many people more or less define themselves by their ability to perform these tasks that you call automatic. From that standpoint, there is clearly value in thinking about the psychological impact on humans of the progress of machines. Even if you don't want to call it a threat, it seems obvious to me that there will be a growing impact.

The rate of progress is the only uncertainty, but we know for sure that a day will come when many people's lifes will be impacted by AI for good or bad. My contention is that those days are not very far.

The outcome of such reflexion might be that humankind is finally able to focus on what really matters, these supposed 2% you are mentioning. If only for that, wouldn't this thinking process be a good thing?

Cheers,
Bernard