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.
For someone who knows near to nothing about how computers do what they can do, you spout an awful lot of naive opinions concerning what they are capable of doing. But that much is to be expected. When you then ad hom attack someone else for not contributing the same level of ignorance as yourself, things become a little different, less professional, less “excellent”.
You won’t recognize good from bad until it is brought down to your level of hate this or love that regardless of truth - somewhat mindless ranting. Thus you complain of the posting of someone you hate as “not interesting” (as if being interesting to you personally was the least bit significant):
…not merely an attempt to be insulting, a less than civil response, but your first engagement with that poster.
Another poster and the thread stater who has read every post and had a great deal of encounters with that same person on this topic and many others answers your insult by claiming that the posts have been “excellent”. So then you try to argue about his qualification for knowing what is excellent or not, while also claiming to be giving the benefit of doubt.
These are the defense characteristics of someone who knows that he doesn’t measure up himself and thus must revert to attacking anyone who disagrees with him and who can’t merely discuss the topic at hand (being too ignorant of it).
In short, apparently due to your ignorance of the topic and lack of civility, you are bantering and ranting OFF TOPIC so as to instigate an ad hom attack on one poster with whom you have had nearly no exchange (under your nouveaux nom de plume).
You are showing far less than “excellent” posting yourself - hardly in a position to judge others.
It’s not an ad hominem James: it’s your writing I think is crap, not you. But Arminius thinks it’s excellent, so let’s give him an opportunity to say why.
And your distraction comments are crap and OFF TOPIC.
And as long as you are addressing the people rather than the subject matter, which you obviously know nothing about, it most certainly IS an ad hominem (aka “addressing/referencing the person”).
But I was addressing the subject matter James, as I said, I’m talking about the crap you write, not you personally.
For example that crap you wrote about the derivation of “human”.
I suggest that you move beyond it. James makes up all sorts of weird etymologies.