This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.
Quote from: Ben Sims on April 26, 2023, 03:02:59 PMThis topic is interesting for what it represents at the macro level for humanity. Iím not sure if we (humans) are appropriately grappling with the question at hand: what do you want in life? Advancement always has innovators, early adopters, mainstream, and curmudgeons. Having an innovator or early adopter tell me that the new thing is the better thing is boring. Someone explain to me not how something is better. Tell me why I should care if itís better. Optimization is soÖdull.I think I have mentioned here before that my wife was an art major. Before I met her -- which was just before I built Pacific Dunes, coincidence or not -- I had little or no contact with the art world and rarely thought about my business in terms of "art". Luckily, now, we have a few friends in the local art community, and a couple of them are golfers, so they are very interested in what I do at an artistic level, and it has led to lots of interesting conversations.Just last night over dinner my wife and I were discussing Picasso and she said that she [paraphrasing] "was okay with his cubist period because he had proven his abilities with conventional forms beforehand". I objected to this as snobbish, asking what difference it made to the observer of the art whether the artist was truly talented or just lucky? But Jennifer has had classes in philosophy of art, unlike myself, and for her it was not even an argument that true art could only occur through the conscious application of observation and talent. An artist "getting lucky" and producing something cool was not REAL art.She would say the same for AI. Maybe it will produce a great course, but does it really KNOW what it's doing? What's the next one going to be like? More likely it will just look for good spots to place C. B. Macdonald's templates, and there will be long green to tee walks!But seriously, you could program it to recognize good spots for 1,000 of the best golf holes on earth and insist that it keep the green to tee walks tidy and move earth if necessary to achieve that . . . but that would not be the same thing as what Bill Coore does, or what I do. You would be unlikely to get anything that was truly original. Maybe it would be more efficient than the average designer's work, but I had a good guffaw at Anthony's idea that the cost savings would be passed on to the consumer. That's not how the world works.
This topic is interesting for what it represents at the macro level for humanity. Iím not sure if we (humans) are appropriately grappling with the question at hand: what do you want in life? Advancement always has innovators, early adopters, mainstream, and curmudgeons. Having an innovator or early adopter tell me that the new thing is the better thing is boring. Someone explain to me not how something is better. Tell me why I should care if itís better. Optimization is soÖdull.
I think we're missing the point a little bit on Tom's post. It's about intentionality. Picasso was a talented and skilled enough artist to have done whatever he set out to do. His cubist period was as intentional as his earliest work. That skill and intentionality is a part of the art. The fact that my kindergartener could have done it is a non sequitur. My kindergartener had no skill or intentionality.
I have given this a couple of days of thought.First, let's all admit there is an ENORMOUS amount of hype around AI right now . . . story after story in every kind of media about how it is going to change every aspect of life. Why all the stories? Because a few Silicon Valley companies are trying to cash in on the hype and ramp their valuations to the moon. They want to live in those mansions NOW, not in ten years IF the technology proves itself.Will AI have that kind of effect? In some businesses, maybe yes; in others, no. Remember all the hype around self driving cars? Well, artificial intelligence and enormous investment still haven't produced a self driving car that is reliable enough to deliver on those promises. (Time to change the subject . . . and they are very glad they didn't label that "AI driving".]For golf course design - or art - AI is more likely to succeed, because success is mostly subjective -- nobody is going to crash and die -- and only a small percentage of the users know the difference between really good work and schlock.But, AI is not going to make it cost a lot less to build a golf course. You might cut out one or two people in the architect's office, and you might cut out the best shapers in favor of guys sitting on a computer . . . in the same way that drone warfare has cut out some pilots, but hasn't seemed to lower our defense budget. And if you believe that a guy sitting in his basement on a computer, or the computer itself, is going to produce BETTER work than a guy sitting on a machine at the site of a future golf hole, well, then maybe AI will take over golf course design. But only because of my previous paragraph.
Anthony,I think the biggest obstacle to self-driving cars is humanity itself. All of the data we have on them so far shows that they get in accidents at far lower rates than people do. But all it takes is one bad wreck by a self-driving vehicle to declare they all must be shut off, imagine if same standard were held for human drivers.P.S. When/if AI robots or equivalent were running the show in the dystopian future, based on metrics in the aggregate one thing would be certain, humans would never be allowed to get behind the wheel.
Another application would just be having a reasonably, if not genius, artificial agronomist to chat with.
Again, I think machine learning applications could assist in development of golf courses throughout all the stages. I just think it's important for folks to remember these things take time, and models are trained to do a specific task. Generalized intelligence is still wildly theoretical.
Quote from: jeffwarne on April 27, 2023, 08:33:34 AMIt seems whenever I go back to a classic course, my favorite holes are tweaked because they were "too severe" "too blind","too steep", or "too quirky", and then holes/terrain like this rarely get left alone on newer courses for all of the above reasons, combined with modern turf speed. Can you cite a couple of examples of this kind of work on older courses?
It seems whenever I go back to a classic course, my favorite holes are tweaked because they were "too severe" "too blind","too steep", or "too quirky", and then holes/terrain like this rarely get left alone on newer courses for all of the above reasons, combined with modern turf speed.
This is clearly the best discussion weíve had in some time. Very excited.OF COURSE thereís a different standard for new courses. The overhead for innovation and newness is so steep that things have to be good day one. Artificial Intelligence has the ability to scour and combine in a way that even AIís first shot at something is pretty high level these days. Imperfection is designed out of the product for fear of being imperfect. But AI canít compete with true creativityÖOld Barnwell had a Little Lido competition where kids got to design a hole to go on the Kids Course. Brian and Blake chose a winner. Without divulging too much, the winner has a ramp and a penguin involved. Suck on that AI.
How will we know when an AI architect has been dead long enough to love?