This: an event that sparked the initial process to conceptualise said event in an outward expression through the medium of music.
I wonder what those algorithms would spur a computer to create? probably something totally different to Coltrane’s piece.
The original composer is expressing something in particular.
A player who learns and plays another artist’s composition is saying that the piece is worth playing and passing on. He is inserting his own individual emphasis in the performance. He is showing his skill. He enjoys playing. Maybe all he is expressing is that he needs to get paid and put a few potatoes on his dinner plate. Maybe Mozart also produced pieces just to pay his rent.
The person in the audience is experiencing that and supporting it. Does there need to be more?
Even a copier in a Chinese painting factory is getting more out of it than a computer.
How is the original event (the KKK attack) being expressed through the music, if neither I nor the people listening to me are aware of the event, and we think the music expresses something completely different?
I don’t believe the music carries that information. If the audience weren’t told, they could never work it out from the music itself, from the sound.
The same is true of language: it doesn’t carry information in the way that I think is generally assumed. That’s what makes it an interesting philosophical question for me.
I composed a piece once and afterwards I thought it reminded me of the atmosphere on Sunday afternoons when I was a child, but I wasn’t thinking about that when I first played it. I’m sure that’s true of many compositions. I don’t see how music itself can acquire the particular something you say the original composer is expressing.
They are having experiences, which in a sense is the whole world, and the computer isn’t having any of that. But although it doesn’t look like the worst job in the world, I don’t think you could pick up the meaning Picasso was trying to convey from just copying the picture. If you didn’t know the background you could take Guernica as a sort of funny cartoon, people and animals with distorted bodies, rushing about. Or a meaningless jumble of sketches.
The audience doesn’t have to get the exact meaning that the artist had in mind at the time.
The artist has a means of expressing himself.
The audience participates in this.
Remove the artist and replace him with a computer … the audience loses the connection and gets pattern recognition at best.
Why remove the artist? What does it achieve? Efficiency? Profits for the owner of the algorithm?
High tech expertise at manipulating large audiences in chosen directions without having to put up with artists.
It makes a difference if you are told a human or computer is behind the art. If you aren’t told and you can’t tell the difference, that is what the Turning Test measures.
I don’t say this in an insensitive way. I’m a storyteller and my year of hard work will be replaced a computer in the narrative science field that can produce much quicker.
The only positive about this, it frees me up to do other stuff.
I don’t believe there is a single meteorologist who is trying this. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
But the butterfly effect is chaotic, it illustrates precisely the opposite of what you imply, it shows how difficult it would be to control the weather, because of the unpredictability of the results of even tiny interventions. Not every flap of a butterfly’s wings produces a hurricane!
It’s called computational stylistics, and it is unable to achieve what stylistics can achieve when conducted by humans. It fails to capture what is most important.
There are already remarkably convincing robot faces. There are however no underlying emotions to display.
It’s always a tactical mistake to say this.
And they will never be so creatively clever as to beat humans at chess either.
What kind of storyteller?
James, if you are going to continue to engage with this discussion I do wish you would say something just a little bit interesting.
And robots will admire their own art 
Not only paintings which are perceived by eye elements
Roughly speaking, computers are taught by people. Anyway, it’s another branch of human art, isn’t it?
James’ contributions to this thread are excellent. Read the thread and “judge” afterwards.
.
From a different lecture, but related:
This is just garbage. The word “human” comes from “homo”, Latin for “man”.
Plebeian BS. “Homo” means self and/or home. “Man” means manager/manipulator/governor.
All homo-sapiens were not humans. Humans didn’t even exist until the age of Ahdam, the first [recorded] autonomic societal Man-ager.
So is this the sort of thing you regard as “excellent” Arminius?
Is the aspect of agreement or disagreement the only aspect to you when it comes to “excellence”?
You’re the one who characterised his contributions as “excellent” Arminius, I think what he writes is quite obviously worthless crap but I’m always ready to change my views if provided with a reason to do so. So I’m interested to know what it is that you think is “excellent” about contributions like these. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt.