meow wrote:Absolutely not.Gaucho wrote:Would you save any person over any cat?
With Meow as your name, I'd hope not
meow wrote:Absolutely not.Gaucho wrote:Would you save any person over any cat?
I would.meow wrote:Absolutely not.Gaucho wrote:Would you save any person over any cat?
No. Is this a trick question?MalkinIsMyHomeboy wrote:if it was you in the building vs a cat, would you tell the saver to save the cat over you?
Faced with the actual decision, I'd probably do it, too.PensFanInDC wrote:I would.meow wrote:Absolutely not.Gaucho wrote:Would you save any person over any cat?
The computer program AARON has been around for decades churning out "original" works. Is it art? Is it original art? I'm simply undecided. Is it creative? Hmmm...PensFanInDC wrote:AI is artificial intelligence. Are we assuming that creative thought is part of intelligence? Is it even possible to generate such a thing (creativity) artificially or does 'artificial' discredit any and all creativity?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARONAARON cannot learn new styles or imagery on its own, each new capability must be hand-coded by Cohen, but it is capable of producing a practically infinite supply of distinct images in its own style. Examples of these images have been exhibited in galleries worldwide, the exhibitions serving as an artistic equivalent of the Turing test. It does seem however that AARON's output follows a noticeable formula (figures standing next to a potted plant, framed within a coloured square is a common theme).
Cohen is very careful not to claim that AARON is creative. But he does ask "If what AARON is making is not art, what is it exactly, and in what ways, other than its origin, does it differ from the 'real thing?' If it is not thinking, what exactly is it doing?" However, it could be argued that AARON is simply following procedural instructions and that the real artist behind each piece is AARON's creator, Cohen. Adding further weight to this argument is AARON's seemingly narrow 'library' of human form variations, poses and scene compositions and the requirement of hard coding to add new 'styles'.
No.Gaucho wrote:No. Is this a trick question?MalkinIsMyHomeboy wrote:if it was you in the building vs a cat, would you tell the saver to save the cat over you?
This, to me, means it is not creativity. It's a glittery version of trial and error.each new capability must be hand-coded by Cohen
spoiler alert...the answer is yes. and you are very aware of this.MalkinIsMyHomeboy wrote:But if it was an animal would I say "screw that noise"? I have no idea.
PensFanInDC wrote:AI is artificial intelligence. Are we assuming that creative thought is part of intelligence? Is it even possible to generate such a thing (creativity) artificially or does 'artificial' discredit any and all creativity?
So did you answer your question?PensFanInDC wrote:This, to me, means it is not creativity. It's a glittery version of trial and error.each new capability must be hand-coded by Cohen
Certainly our current state, arrived at via evolution, impacts the moral decisions that we make, but I think we ought to make moral decisions through use of reason. And we ought to try to be consistent in doing so.PensFanInDC wrote:So morality is outside the spectrum of physical evolution. I would think that if millions of years of evolution granted me with the perfect tools for tearing flesh with the sole purpose of eating it then it would probably be in my best interest to do so considering the length of time it took to get this way.Kraftster wrote:Well, evolutionary vestiges probably shouldn't dictate morality.PensFanInDC wrote:redwill, you believe in evolution correct? I know nothing about your thoughts on it so I'd like to ask if you think we developed incisors because we were eating meat out of necessity? Incisors have little value in an all veggie diet.
To the extent I played a part in this, I wasn't really looking to make stepping into the philosophy thread something to avoid. As you said, this is the philosophy thread and surely you understood that there was more to redwill's hypothetical than polling LGP for data.count2infinity wrote:I can see this going down some road of logic that I'd rather not go down. I made a snap decision reading the question, and one that I think most people would make when posed with the question. I guess I really should have seen it coming in the philosophy thread. I value a cat's life over a piece of artwork, and I eat burgers. If that makes me a hypocrite, I'll smile as I'm eating my double bacon cheese burger and bid you a good day.
What is the person is an 80 year old death row inmate who is 100% guilty and is scheduled to die tomorrow and the cat is a 1 month old kitten with its life ahead of it?PensFanInDC wrote:I would.meow wrote:Absolutely not.Gaucho wrote:Would you save any person over any cat?
No changeHockeynut! wrote:What is the person is an 80 year old death row inmate who is 100% guilty and is scheduled to die tomorrow and the cat is a 1 month old kitten with its life ahead of it?PensFanInDC wrote:I would.meow wrote:Absolutely not.Gaucho wrote:Would you save any person over any cat?
*cough* Ovechkin *cough*PensFanInDC wrote:If stated it before somewhere on LGP. I value all human life, no matter who the human is, above all other life on the planet. The "worst" person on the planet is worth more (albeit a fraction of the width of a hair more) than the best of the best non-human.
Actually lassie would save himself, and probably you and Hitler. Heck, Lassie probably would've been the one to call 911MalkinIsMyHomeboy wrote:so you'd save Hitler over Lassie?