Since comptuers can only understand what they know, and not infer on new understandings, they cannot, and never will be able to, create real art.
So, when a computer can infer on new understandings, they will be able to create art? Your tone makes it seem impossible, but your premise outlines conditions under which they can do it. All we need is an inference engine.
That level of understanding of humor and audience is going to hold back good creativity.
Let's assume that the Turing Test is a good test for AI. It's debatable, but let's accept the premise. We don't have good AI yet, so what is the point in testing what we have against a test for good AI?
The same reason we tested inferior chess programs against grand masters. So we could learn the weaknesses, and improve upon them. So testing an AI improves the AI, like testing a chess program lead to improvements in the chess program.
When I was at school, we didn't set the high jump at olympic champion levels.
When I was at school, the pool was olympic length, and the high jump could be set at olympic heights, as well as lower ones. So you do what you can, and compare your failure to the desired levels. It's not just the pass-fail as given. But it lets you compare your failure to the ideal.
Like lasting longer in chess against a grand master, or fooling more people in a Turing test (or lasting longer in the question sequence until the tester correctly identifies the AI).
What the AI researchers don't consider is that humans are driven by millions of (mostly conflicting) wants. Hierarchies of needs cover a small subset of those most prominent. But we aren't programming in behavioral parameters, just "intelligence", and that's why we'll fail. Humans have the desire to be liked, and to please others. How do you program that into a computer?
Right now I feel the problem is a range/cost issue.
I think the answer is unrelated to the tech.
Have you ever noticed here that anyone who mentions actual qualifications is shouted down as a fake argument from authority? That people look down on those with certifications as having worked for the cert, and not understanding that which they are certified in?
The US is firmly in the dark ages. People celebrate ignorance and backwardness. Educated people are more likely to see through the lies of the political elite (of both sides) and thus are attacked constantly in our society.
There's an elitism in being "dumb". The popularity of things like The Simple Life, where two highly ignorant people have their ignorance held up on display, indicates we celebrate ignorance. It makes us feel better.
And electric cars are something that we perceive as the rational people selecting, and that's a bad thing. It's generally not the 1% that are driving them around, but the rational 50%. And they are the worst members of society. Educated, and making more than the poor. We should hold them back. The 1% are afraid of them because they have the capability of pulling the 1% down, if they ever woke up.
So, it's classist, not ecomomic or practical reasons that holds back electric cars. When you can't tell the electric from the diesel (other than the cloud of soot behind them), then they will take off. Until then, they are targets for ridicule and hate.
All a byproduct of the classism in our society, not any rational reasons against electric.
"No... down with the people appropriating people that don't share their ideology or way of thinking as members of their group."
In your opinion. It's up for interpretation, and anyway there's a lot more to the Guardian than some caricature of brain-dead leftism, and there's a lot more to Dune than a one sentence quote from Paul Atreides.
I really think a movie adaptation could be done without all of the internal dialogue.
Yeah but it'd sorta be like doing a painting and calling it an "adaptation" of Bach's D-minor partita for violin. The medium is the essence of Dune in a way many other books aren't; any book that deals so heavily in metaphysics is going to be hard to realize visually.
The attempts to put Dune on screen have been largely terrible, but this is one of those books where the "big budget blockbuster" would be totally justified.
Huge stretches of the book are internal monologue or whispered conversations in dark rooms, where two people exchange few words and pages are spent on exposition. The book is unfilmable; or rather, you can make a lot of movies with the title Dune but they're going to end up just sharing character names and the general bag of situations.
"glowing piece also claimed ownership of his work effectively within the ideological camp of the paper"
So on the one hand, down with the Guardian because it is rigidly ideological. And on the other, down with the Guardian because it doesn't adhere to your rigid, singular interpretation of the novel Dune.
On paper many of the Arabic personal and place names are spelled strangely. Lawrence favored his own style of transliteration.