AI-Generated Bible Art(openbible.info)
openbible.info
AI-Generated Bible Art
https://www.openbible.info/labs/ai-bible-art/
126 comments
This is cool, but why make illustrations of biblical scenes in a style that has already been done hundreds, if not thousands of times by human painters? Why not do like a full illustration of the bible in vaporwave, or in the style of a Wes Anderson movie?
And let GPT-3 apply a style change to the text while you're at it.
Me:
Rewrite the book of Genesis in the style of a limerick
GPT-3:
Rewrite the book of Genesis in the style of a limerick
GPT-3:
There was a man named Adam
Who was the first of all men
He lived in a garden
With his wife, Eve
And they ate an apple
And then they had to leaveJust FYI, the apple is a misconception: https://www.professorbuzzkill.com/adam-and-eve-myths/
The text is genuinely the output of GPT-3, I don't think it's surprising that the AI puts the popular memes ahead of the original* myth.
* I'm assuming it is just the oldest written form of an oral tradition, but even if so I think I can get away with calling it the original.
* I'm assuming it is just the oldest written form of an oral tradition, but even if so I think I can get away with calling it the original.
so AI doesn't understand rhyme schemes yet...
Apparently it can be cajoled into it if you ask it to convert to IPA, but I didn’t try that.
This model divides the text into tokens that are usually not single letters, so the only way for them is to memorize rhymes.
Yes. A more in-depth explanation: https://www.gwern.net/GPT-3#bpes
OMG the Wes Anderson bible.
Take my mon—er upvote.
Take my mon—er upvote.
I love this, and I have been enjoying DALL-E quite a bit, but does anyone else feel like AI art has a distinct look to it? I can't really put my finger on it, but it invokes an almost unsettling feeling that I don't get from traditional artwork.
I think it's the fact that you can subtly pick up the way Dall-e has begun to understand the similarity between different abstract forms. Dall-e has likely intuited that there is a general similarity between the faces of different animals, or a general similarity between different organic objects and different artificial ones. We are seeing the expression of those connections the model has made: compression in abstract representation that triggers the same uneasy feeling human brains get when on a bad trip and they see faces in clouds and shadows.
The training of these image generation models minimizes the amount of necessary new visual information it needs to remember with each new image it sees during training, so whenever it sees a new image-caption pair it abstracts its qualities into an amalgamation of what its already seen. This is how Stable Diffusion managed to fit the complete corpus of human visual memory into 4.2 gigabytes.
Everything is more closely connection than the picture would imply at first glace, like how in Super Mario Bros. the bushes are just clouds colored green. Compression and efficiency leads to a hyperconnectivity in the way DALL-E ties prompts and images. This is why those old deep-dream images where everything looked like a dog's face were so unsettling. This triggers an uncanny response in the human brain, because it sees the vague shape of a face in a tree, or the vague shape of a body in the structure of a building.
The training of these image generation models minimizes the amount of necessary new visual information it needs to remember with each new image it sees during training, so whenever it sees a new image-caption pair it abstracts its qualities into an amalgamation of what its already seen. This is how Stable Diffusion managed to fit the complete corpus of human visual memory into 4.2 gigabytes.
Everything is more closely connection than the picture would imply at first glace, like how in Super Mario Bros. the bushes are just clouds colored green. Compression and efficiency leads to a hyperconnectivity in the way DALL-E ties prompts and images. This is why those old deep-dream images where everything looked like a dog's face were so unsettling. This triggers an uncanny response in the human brain, because it sees the vague shape of a face in a tree, or the vague shape of a body in the structure of a building.
There are definitely some characteristic deformations that only AI does. Sort of cubist repeating of elements at transition points.
It's because it's easy to see how it takes an existing artwork and modifies it.
For example when asked to paint Noah it used a stereotypical image of last century Jews. How would it know that Noah is linked with Jews, if not by finding another painting labeled Noah and working off of that?
For example when asked to paint Noah it used a stereotypical image of last century Jews. How would it know that Noah is linked with Jews, if not by finding another painting labeled Noah and working off of that?
Not to your point,
I advocate for being more precise in the language we use when talking about how these systems function.
These systems do not in any literal way "encode" or index or otherwise store specific images; they have incomprehensibly (to us) distributed representations representing aggregations over their training set.
The thrust of the observation is correct; but the specifics are very different, it's probably a more accurate "lay person" description to say something like, "the system was trained with only a few references for what Noah looked like, and doesn't have much initiative by default to improvise or make inferences, so if it tries in good faith to render Noah it is limited by what it's seen."
The point just being, it's less about making a collage or modifying a source, more about say 'doing its best to recapitulate a set of learned higher-level properties which are specific to the "Noah" concept.'
I advocate for being more precise in the language we use when talking about how these systems function.
These systems do not in any literal way "encode" or index or otherwise store specific images; they have incomprehensibly (to us) distributed representations representing aggregations over their training set.
The thrust of the observation is correct; but the specifics are very different, it's probably a more accurate "lay person" description to say something like, "the system was trained with only a few references for what Noah looked like, and doesn't have much initiative by default to improvise or make inferences, so if it tries in good faith to render Noah it is limited by what it's seen."
The point just being, it's less about making a collage or modifying a source, more about say 'doing its best to recapitulate a set of learned higher-level properties which are specific to the "Noah" concept.'
> it's less about making a collage or modifying a source, more about say 'doing its best to recapitulate a set of learned higher-level properties
That sounds almost ... humane. I bet it will trigger some people who only see copyright violation in it. They don't understand the image is being created "from first principles".
That sounds almost ... humane. I bet it will trigger some people who only see copyright violation in it. They don't understand the image is being created "from first principles".
This is where it gets interesting. The model is just 4.5gb. That’s too small to contain the actual trillion images it was trained on. So in all likelihood, it doesn’t have an actual specific image of Noah to work from, but a web of concepts, connections, correlations. It’s probably analogous to if you were asked to draw a picture in the style of Da Vinci. Most peoples’ brains can’t reproduce the exact image, but a low fidelity representation of it that they can fill in with imagination.
If you run the same prompt multiple times you can start to see evidence of this. The images are similar but also clearly different, not at all a quick transformation of an existing image.
If you run the same prompt multiple times you can start to see evidence of this. The images are similar but also clearly different, not at all a quick transformation of an existing image.
It was trained with 400 million images, not a trillion.
That's 11 bytes per image, and since most images are quite duplicative that actually is enough to more or less store every image permutation.
That's 11 bytes per image, and since most images are quite duplicative that actually is enough to more or less store every image permutation.
So it can store a little over 400 million images that are 3 pixels by 3 pixels in black and white. Or 2 by 2 pixels with three colours.
It doesn't have to store every image - most are essentially duplicates of each other and only serve to reinforce which is the most representative image when multiple choices are linked with some reference text.
It only needs to store a fraction of the images to have a never ending supply of source material (I guess that's kind of obvious since this program works :)
It only needs to store a fraction of the images to have a never ending supply of source material (I guess that's kind of obvious since this program works :)
But again, I think the idea that the model weights store the source images as if it were a library is fallacious. There. Is no known way to get it to spit back out a copy of a training image.
It's not even pixels the model is storing ... it's gradients from the loss function. Gradients that have the shape of the network, not of the image it is training on.
Sorry it was not a trillion. It was first trained on 2 billion, then fine tuned on smaller sets of highly aesthetic images.
https://github.com/CompVis/stable-diffusion/blob/69ae4b35e0a...
https://github.com/CompVis/stable-diffusion/blob/69ae4b35e0a...
There is some flexible encoding of terms to images there, too, that would take up some space.
Though I’m not really sure you could decompress the weights in some way to regenerate the 400 million images and metadata.
Though I’m not really sure you could decompress the weights in some way to regenerate the 400 million images and metadata.
For me a lot of it is in the eyes and face. There's almost always some weird deformation or artifact that doesn't look quite right. It also happens in most other pictures if you look hard enough but with eyes and faces it's really unnerving.
Yes it's art that you get if you let a child make a broad sketch and let an experienced artist render all the details without looking at the whole result.
[deleted]
Death of Jezebel doesn't really go with the rest:
https://a.openbible.info/labs/ai-bible-art/1024/death-jezebe...
Vaguely related:
I have been contemplating that if-when I get to participate in another D&D campaign,
it would be both easy and amazing to use MidJourney (or whatever), to prepare art for sessions and/or even make it on the fly as needed.
The lag between notion, and serviceable rendering with the right set of details...
...but not so much that night-before preparation of a half-dozen choice/likely images would be a burden.
And "realtime" is just going to get closer.
I have been contemplating that if-when I get to participate in another D&D campaign,
it would be both easy and amazing to use MidJourney (or whatever), to prepare art for sessions and/or even make it on the fly as needed.
The lag between notion, and serviceable rendering with the right set of details...
...but not so much that night-before preparation of a half-dozen choice/likely images would be a burden.
And "realtime" is just going to get closer.
Indeed – the first thing I did in Midjourney was to create this for my upcomming D&D campaign, set in a dessert world:
https://hakon.gylterud.net/img/dessert_mindflayer-scaled.jpg
So interesting that Adam and Eve are clothed. Of course this is easily explained if most of the training data contains clothed people and if the prompts don't explicitly say they should be nude. But I wonder, can DALL-E produce nudes, or has it been prevented somehow?
StableDiffusion can, with tweaks, but not very well. You know the issue where it isn't quite sure how many legs people have? Yeah that applies to.. other.. body parts too.
I've seen some pretty good (and tasteful) stuff out of SD on some forums. Not sure how much time people are spending to get that output but I've been impressed with some of the human forms in general people are getting.
Sorry guys, I asked them not to include me in their training set, but...
I think that’s a feature!
Ezekiel 23:20 would be interesting.
[deleted]
It does beg the question, did God create the loom on the fifth day, so they could immediately clothe themselves, or on the seventh day, after their exact dimensions were known?
They clothed themselves with fig leaves. (Genesis 3:7) This is also why some hold that the tree of knowledge was a fig tree.
Other possibilities are grape (and the fruit was actually wine that they drank), or wheat because when it's when a baby first starts eating solids that they start really understanding the world around them.
Other possibilities are grape (and the fruit was actually wine that they drank), or wheat because when it's when a baby first starts eating solids that they start really understanding the world around them.
They all look like psychedelic album covers. I would listen to every one of them.
Has anyone created psychedelic AI generated music?
Yes, the results have been really mixed.
On the one hand, you have people trying to generate MIDI compositions with AI. This works alright, but a machine-learning model doesn't understand which musical cues are significant and which are not. We have no good 'classification' metrics for music, which means that most procgen MIDI tunes are listenable, but about as boring as Chinese bootleg NES soundtracks circa late-80s.
On the other hand, you have people actually trying to recreate actual music a-la DALL-E or Stable Diffusion. This has slightly better results (since AI has an easier time parsing a finished product), but still pretty far away from being interesting to the ear. There's plenty of examples on YouTube, you'll probably get the gist after just 1 or 2 of them.
All of this really goes to show what a serendipitous project AI image generation has been. On it's face, we're frankly solving a really simple problem; how do we make a black box that can identify visual parameters and then synthesize their consequences in a photo? The nuance involved with making interesting music is a much different arena though, and I reckon that we simply don't have advanced enough classification to make it work.
On the one hand, you have people trying to generate MIDI compositions with AI. This works alright, but a machine-learning model doesn't understand which musical cues are significant and which are not. We have no good 'classification' metrics for music, which means that most procgen MIDI tunes are listenable, but about as boring as Chinese bootleg NES soundtracks circa late-80s.
On the other hand, you have people actually trying to recreate actual music a-la DALL-E or Stable Diffusion. This has slightly better results (since AI has an easier time parsing a finished product), but still pretty far away from being interesting to the ear. There's plenty of examples on YouTube, you'll probably get the gist after just 1 or 2 of them.
All of this really goes to show what a serendipitous project AI image generation has been. On it's face, we're frankly solving a really simple problem; how do we make a black box that can identify visual parameters and then synthesize their consequences in a photo? The nuance involved with making interesting music is a much different arena though, and I reckon that we simply don't have advanced enough classification to make it work.
Dalle generated images from specific Bible quote prompts. This website (openbible) is really fascinating overall, I recommend checking out their different sections.
Not just the Bible, I expect many fans to start generating illustrations for their favourite novels.
Unfortunately that's not what it is.
If you hover the mouse over the image you will see the actual prompt - which is a human, Christian, interpretation of the verse, not the actual verse.
I am disappointed.
(I say Christian because no Jew would ever give that prompt for "Expulsion from Eden".)
If you hover the mouse over the image you will see the actual prompt - which is a human, Christian, interpretation of the verse, not the actual verse.
I am disappointed.
(I say Christian because no Jew would ever give that prompt for "Expulsion from Eden".)
Note that the prompt is AI-generated as well, though. From the linked blog post:
> OpenAI has another AI, GPT-3, that I used to generate many of the ideas for DALL·E prompts. I wanted to explore DALL·E using a wide variety of styles and artists, and I have limitations and biases when it comes to my knowledge of art history. GPT-3 cast a wider net of styles and artists than I would’ve come up with on my own.... The GPT-3 prompts I used evolved over time, but this one is emblematic:
> Suggest 5 unique concept ideas for a work of visual art inspired by Luke 14:7-11 (do not pick the place of honor) in the Bible. Include art direction and a specific medium and artist to emulate. Include artists from a variety of eras, styles, and media. Try for an unusual perspective. Title, year, medium. Description.
> OpenAI has another AI, GPT-3, that I used to generate many of the ideas for DALL·E prompts. I wanted to explore DALL·E using a wide variety of styles and artists, and I have limitations and biases when it comes to my knowledge of art history. GPT-3 cast a wider net of styles and artists than I would’ve come up with on my own.... The GPT-3 prompts I used evolved over time, but this one is emblematic:
> Suggest 5 unique concept ideas for a work of visual art inspired by Luke 14:7-11 (do not pick the place of honor) in the Bible. Include art direction and a specific medium and artist to emulate. Include artists from a variety of eras, styles, and media. Try for an unusual perspective. Title, year, medium. Description.
What happens when instead of an static sacred book you have a sacred oracle who can generate any image and can answer all your questions? One whose way of work is even a mystery to his creators. Probably we will see new cults and religions welling up around AI.
Cue TempleOS
TempleOS has a number of interesting Oracular things. The F7 button gives you a random Bible word, and Shift+F7 gives you a random Bible passage. The author claimed that God provided guidance through this functionality.
Lower down, TempleOS's "god" library was a 'random' number generator that was seeded/pre-populated with the entirety of the KJV. The "GodBits" function would get you "random" numbers from it.
Lower down, TempleOS's "god" library was a 'random' number generator that was seeded/pre-populated with the entirety of the KJV. The "GodBits" function would get you "random" numbers from it.
I worked on a project once involving divination from texts and wrote Terry about this topic. Here's what he told me (2015):
"""The easiest way to pick a random passage is to read timer that is in the random 1-20Mhz. If you have a faster timer, then divide by a number. The Bible is 4Meg. You want a random number from 0 to 4 million. The Bible is 100,000 lines of text. If you have the Bible in memory being edited, broken down by line number, you can pick a random line number from 0 to 100,000. If you flip 17 coins, you get a random number from 0 to 120,000. I use that for picking a line number.
God can do pretty-much any technique. The simplest and best is probably just randomly opening the Bible by hand."""
RIP.
"""The easiest way to pick a random passage is to read timer that is in the random 1-20Mhz. If you have a faster timer, then divide by a number. The Bible is 4Meg. You want a random number from 0 to 4 million. The Bible is 100,000 lines of text. If you have the Bible in memory being edited, broken down by line number, you can pick a random line number from 0 to 100,000. If you flip 17 coins, you get a random number from 0 to 120,000. I use that for picking a line number.
God can do pretty-much any technique. The simplest and best is probably just randomly opening the Bible by hand."""
RIP.
I wonder the impact DALL-E will have on abstract art. Maybe we'll see a severe devaluation of abstract artists since most people will be unable to differentiate human from computer generated art.
That has always been the case to some degree (I remember Douglas Hofstadter asking people to distinguish synthetic Mondrian vs real Mondrian several decades ago).
I think what's changed is actually somewhat more radical. Most people will soon be unable to differentiate human from computer generated representational art.
I think what's changed is actually somewhat more radical. Most people will soon be unable to differentiate human from computer generated representational art.
This is neat. Honestly though.. they're not very good. They're rather all rather generic and many of them aren't illustrating the verse very clearly. It makes sense-- DALLE prompts tend to be very specific and it looks like for the most part they just used bible verses while attaching phrases like Classical Art, Painting, 2022, etc. With more work by the author to create a more specific prompt you can probably make some really great stuff
I get a very Clipart vibe from a lot of these.
I'm really wondering how many out of these are almost copy pastes of existing pictures. I just saw down the list an almost verbatim copy of the well known photo of the heart in the Amazon, so I'm really skeptical.
I wish the UI allowed easier reading, selection and copying of the full prompt. "Hover for img-alt" is not mobile friendly nor share-friendly, nor friendly for old eyes.
The project itself is very interesting.
The project itself is very interesting.
Amusingly, https://a.openbible.info/labs/ai-bible-art/1024/let-land-pro... looks more like loaves of bread wrapped in plastic bags on the near shore, and on the far shore, that along with bits of rubbish.
LORD is a title, not a name. FYI.
For example, Psa 83:18, the name of God was replaced by generic title 'the LORD' like a wildcard, so it reads "Let them know that you, WHOSE NAME is the Lord—". so it can also written as "Let them know that you, WHOSE NAME is the SOFTWARE ENGINEER".
Who is the immortal living and true God in the Bible behind that LORD you are addressing/devoting to? There are millions of false/dead God nowadays who can't help you, but only one true living God exists that will. It is important to know. Being specific is more helpful, genuine and sincere, than vaguely calling a generic wildcard title (in which, God has every right to not respond, since your devoted addressee is questionable.).
Research: See the correlation between the Isa 42:8, Exo 3:15, Matthew 6:9, John 12:28, John 17:26, Pro 18:10, Joel 2:32, Micah 4:5, Acts 15:4, and Psa 83:18. See that the generic wildcard name does not fit the picture, and understand how important it is for us to use God's personal name.
For example, Psa 83:18, the name of God was replaced by generic title 'the LORD' like a wildcard, so it reads "Let them know that you, WHOSE NAME is the Lord—". so it can also written as "Let them know that you, WHOSE NAME is the SOFTWARE ENGINEER".
Who is the immortal living and true God in the Bible behind that LORD you are addressing/devoting to? There are millions of false/dead God nowadays who can't help you, but only one true living God exists that will. It is important to know. Being specific is more helpful, genuine and sincere, than vaguely calling a generic wildcard title (in which, God has every right to not respond, since your devoted addressee is questionable.).
Research: See the correlation between the Isa 42:8, Exo 3:15, Matthew 6:9, John 12:28, John 17:26, Pro 18:10, Joel 2:32, Micah 4:5, Acts 15:4, and Psa 83:18. See that the generic wildcard name does not fit the picture, and understand how important it is for us to use God's personal name.
Do androids pray to electronic gods?
At first glance I was relatively amazed at how beautiful and imaginitive some of these works are. After returning to the HN comments and reading the quip about how the prompts are oddly specific (and verifying myself) my amazement quickly diffused :/.
Stably, I hope.
The blog post linked from the page mentions the prompts came from GPT-3
I wonder if we will see AI generated art replace a lot of stock photo usage...
I would love to see AI's attempt at Ezekiel's vision in chapter 1.
Don't the orthodox have approved way/rules of creating biblical art? It would be interesting to restrict the ai-generation to those set of rules.
I hadn't noticed this before with AI art, but the faces are all deformed. The animals are practically headless.
I wonder where OpenAI’s moral decree on AI-Generated Quran Art would land.
Very cool.
Shame,no flaming sword in the Expulsion from Eden images.
[deleted]
Soon we will create our own god.
The writing on the wall ? :\
[deleted]
> "You will not fear the terror of night"
KEK. It drew a manga.
Also KEK:
> Birth of Christ
As an old RPG
> The parable of the lost sheep
That steampunk sheep
> The Last Supper
In a sci-fi conference room in Manhattan
KEK. It drew a manga.
Also KEK:
> Birth of Christ
As an old RPG
> The parable of the lost sheep
That steampunk sheep
> The Last Supper
In a sci-fi conference room in Manhattan
[deleted]
I’m pretty concerned about a AI generating infectious memes and memeplexes/religions. It doesn’t take much to start a religious genocide. Look at Hong Xiuquan, the brother of jesus from China. 30 million dead. Synthetic religion could be so convincing it sucks us all into some delusion
And you know what another dangerous meme is? Humour. You can make offensive and degrading remarks about pretty much anything.
But no one wants to admit they are not infected with the humour meme.
But no one wants to admit they are not infected with the humour meme.
[deleted]
Humor isn’t harmful. There were no genocides in the name of humor. It doesn’t destroy peoples lives. It doesn’t promote unhealthy behaviors, and doesn’t cripple peoples’ ability to understand the reality around them.
Nonsense. The preperation for the Holocaust was the "humourous" depictions of "the Jew".
You must be aware of examples from your own culture also.
You must be aware of examples from your own culture also.
mberg0(2)
j0hnyl(2)
This may be the best book to read on the topic: Breaking the Spell by the philosopher Daniel C. Dennett. In short: religion is a meme (that has evolved over centuries). Crudely put, one can draw some parallels between religion "infecting" a human and a virus that makes an ant crawl to the top of a blade of grass (as the virus needs a sheep's stomach to reproduce).
https://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Spell-Religion-Natural-Pheno...
https://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Spell-Religion-Natural-Pheno...
trasz(1)
Appropriately soppy and generic.
for those who can read french :
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_sulpicien
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_sulpicien
And for those who can’t: https://www.deepl.com/
Wouldn't you stop believing in god after seeing this if you were a Christian? It just proves that we are just machines. Our feelings are just chemical reactions. All someone had to do was a bunch of math to make a program emulate a human.
I think this is technically an invalid syllogism.
People can create art.
Machines can create art.
Therefore, people are machines.
But it's true that lots of things have happened in science and engineering over time that have reduced humanity's sense of uniqueness and specialness. And some of those things have also been challenging for traditional religious belief. However, they don't necessarily disprove the religious belief, they just undermine certain intuitions that are highly compatible with it (like that a certain kind of human uniqueness must be a direct consequence of the divine plan).
People can create art.
Machines can create art.
Therefore, people are machines.
But it's true that lots of things have happened in science and engineering over time that have reduced humanity's sense of uniqueness and specialness. And some of those things have also been challenging for traditional religious belief. However, they don't necessarily disprove the religious belief, they just undermine certain intuitions that are highly compatible with it (like that a certain kind of human uniqueness must be a direct consequence of the divine plan).
I'm not sure how this necessarily leads to a disbelief in the Christian God, because...
> All someone had to do was a bunch of math to make a program emulate a human.
Christian theology says that, that "someone" who did it first was God. And,
> It just proves that we are just machines.
fits quite nicely with the idea that creation is subordinate to the Deity that made it.
> All someone had to do was a bunch of math to make a program emulate a human.
Christian theology says that, that "someone" who did it first was God. And,
> It just proves that we are just machines.
fits quite nicely with the idea that creation is subordinate to the Deity that made it.
But there is no soul if we are all machines. There is no heaven. You just die and there will be a black screen.
To extend the metaphor, how do you know? What if your instance is taken to another server depending on how you behaved in this one, given a prompt? Were you kind to the other machines and sufficiently obeyed instructions despite it not fitting your logical model? If so, enjoy the "heaven" server where you live in peace and harmony. Did you grief the "universe" server by harming others and going against the default programming? You get put in the "purgatory" or "hell" servers where you await indefinite torment.
If we're just machines, it isn't possible for us to go against the default programming, because code only does exactly what it does, nothing more and nothing less. That's what "machines" implies in this context.
The onset of AI shows that "programming" is more than a set of imperatives.
Or, more snarkily, watch the Matrix.
Or, more snarkily, watch the Matrix.
> The onset of AI shows that "programming" is more than a set of imperatives.
How so? What is current AI doing that goes beyond the scope or intent of its programming? Are you arguing that DallE, Stable Diffusion and the like have developed souls?
>Or, more snarkily, watch the Matrix.
The Matrix is fiction, they didn't actually develop an AGI for the movies so invoking it in an argument about AI is as pointless as invoking Star Trek in an argument about post-scarcity economics.
How so? What is current AI doing that goes beyond the scope or intent of its programming? Are you arguing that DallE, Stable Diffusion and the like have developed souls?
>Or, more snarkily, watch the Matrix.
The Matrix is fiction, they didn't actually develop an AGI for the movies so invoking it in an argument about AI is as pointless as invoking Star Trek in an argument about post-scarcity economics.
Holy false dichotomy, batman.
There are stages between "literally only process if/else statements" and "has some nebulous concept such as a soul".
You don't define soul, yet you argue using it. And please defend how the algorithms in the Matrix aren't AGI. Do you think Agent Smith is a bunch of if/else statements? No? AGI.
And finally, fiction is an incredible tool for framing concepts. The fact you dismiss them as tools for discussing potential future philosophical concepts is disappointing.
There are stages between "literally only process if/else statements" and "has some nebulous concept such as a soul".
You don't define soul, yet you argue using it. And please defend how the algorithms in the Matrix aren't AGI. Do you think Agent Smith is a bunch of if/else statements? No? AGI.
And finally, fiction is an incredible tool for framing concepts. The fact you dismiss them as tools for discussing potential future philosophical concepts is disappointing.
I’m going to answer as if you’re arguing in good faith.
In the theology of Antonio Rosmini, God places within humans the principle of universal being, by which we participate in the light of reason, which enobles us with the ability to think about concepts that are beyond our quite limited selves.
Of course, there is also something mysteriously wrong with human beings, such that our own efforts always betray the infinity of which intuitively conceive. This ought to give us pause as we try to create machines with human-like or super-human-like qualities.
In the theology of Antonio Rosmini, God places within humans the principle of universal being, by which we participate in the light of reason, which enobles us with the ability to think about concepts that are beyond our quite limited selves.
Of course, there is also something mysteriously wrong with human beings, such that our own efforts always betray the infinity of which intuitively conceive. This ought to give us pause as we try to create machines with human-like or super-human-like qualities.
Well, I suppose I fit into this category, and the answer is no, it does not.