[ExI] More thoughts on sentient computers

[spike at rainier66.com]

From: extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat
Sent: Sunday, 26 February, 2023 3:16 PM
To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Cc: William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ExI] More thoughts on sentient computers

 

>…Let's devise a measure of feminine beauty.  :I suggest the classical way:  measure breast, waist, and hip circumference.  Totally objective.  Then create an ideal set of measurements. Every woman then can be classified on the beauty scale as average, etc.

 

>…No one will be happy with that, even though it's totally objective - right?  OK, so create ideal dimensions of jaw, nose, and so on.  You could create dozens of objective measures and no one would agree with any of them.  Objective measure then, isn't the way to go, is it?

 

 

No, not at all.  Reason: there is no universal way to determine the weight of each factor.

 

No worries, however, for there is a way to use these things to derive an objective measure: which one makes the most money specifically as a model?

 

It has to be a model, for that profession is based entirely on beauty.  Contests bring in other factors such as ability to walk in the completely absurd combination of spike heels with beachware, or spontaneous speaking etc.  Actresses are beautiful, but they must be able to memorize and recite scripts.  But fashion models only need to be drop-dead gorgeous.  They can be mentally deficient in every way, but still make a living at modelling if they excel sufficiently.

 

With all that… most fashion models make nearly nothing, or even work at a loss (details cheerfully available.)  A very small fraction of them make enormous sums at modelling.  

 

So… regardless of what factors we come up with to derive an objective measure of beauty, the only completely objective measure is profit.

 

>…The Beatles are the best musicians in history because they sold the most albums etc.  Agree with that?

 

We all have our favorites.  They were not in my top 10, but they made it to my top 20.  I agree that they made the most money at music.  This is the best we can do for measuring success of any artist.  Again music is reproducible for no money, which is why I suggested focusing on artists, who create one physical object at a time.

 

>…  The best book in history has to be the Bible - the most sold… 

 

The bible is a collection of books, so it isn’t directly comparable.

 

>…  Aesthetics just isn't amenable to scientific/objective sorts of measures… bill w

 

Granted.  Now I am proposing ways to create lists and sort them.  This requires objective measures.  Otherwise, software cannot be trained as effectively to write music that will make us a buttload of money.  If it fails at that task, I have no way to estimate ROI, and no interest in it for I have no way to decide if it is worth investing in whoever is developing it.

 

Fun aside: we are clearly very close to having software which can write popular music of sufficient quality to make it on the radio.  Of all the genres likely to be software generated, the first will most likely be… rap.

 

spike 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230226/5a34c642/attachment.htm>