3 ms·

There is still a human in the loop for now, but I'd wager a guess that this won't be the case for long. A lot of the "humans will still be needed" arguments im

There is still a human in the loop for now, but I'd wager a guess that this won't be the case for long. A lot of the "humans will still be needed" arguments implicitly rely on the assumption that the trend of AI progress stops here. The original DALL-E was released just a year ago. In one year, AI image generation went from generating images that looked slightly normal if you squinted really hard, to the beautiful, detailed and creative results we see today. The same speed of progress can be observed in almost all other domains, from code generation to question answering and music synthesis. For many of these problems, it almost feels like the next step up in quality is just two hours of planning and a couple months of training away. Like they're already solved and just waiting for someone to implement the solution. So yeah, humans are still needed right now. But I wouldn't base my hopes for the future on that, because the world of AI capabilities will probably look very different in just one year.

vintermann 4y ago
The intention behind the work is not something that can be automated, since intentionality is (by definition!) a teleological notion. No matter how complicated a process is, I'm not obliged to ascribe intentionality to it. Looking at an ice crystal through a microscope I may be awestruck by it's complexity and beauty, but it won't be art, because there's no person making it and having an intention with it (except, I suppose, God, if you allow that). Conversely, even if something IS made deliberately and by a human, I'm not forced to recognize it as intentional. I could likewise argue that the guy making it is just a big blob of molecules following (mostly) deterministic rules, and deny them personhood. It would be a pretty shitty thing to do, but it wouldn't be factually wrong. Or right. As I said, it's a teleological choice to ascribe something the ability to have intentions. But it would not make much sense to ascribe intentionality to both a computer algorithm and the person using it, seeing as the former is a product of the latter.
thedorkknight 4y ago
If/when we get to the point that AI is literally seeking out State Faire art contests and initiating it's own submissions without any human intervention whatsoever, we're going to be having an entirely different conversation

vintermann 4y ago

The intention behind the work is not something that can be automated, since intentionality is (by definition!) a teleological notion. No matter how complicated a process is, I'm not obliged to ascribe intentionality to it. Looking at an ice crystal through a microscope I may be awestruck by it's complexity and beauty, but it won't be art, because there's no person making it and having an intention with it (except, I suppose, God, if you allow that). Conversely, even if something IS made deliberately and by a human, I'm not forced to recognize it as intentional. I could likewise argue that the guy making it is just a big blob of molecules following (mostly) deterministic rules, and deny them personhood. It would be a pretty shitty thing to do, but it wouldn't be factually wrong. Or right. As I said, it's a teleological choice to ascribe something the ability to have intentions. But it would not make much sense to ascribe intentionality to both a computer algorithm and the person using it, seeing as the former is a product of the latter.

thedorkknight 4y ago

If/when we get to the point that AI is literally seeking out State Faire art contests and initiating it's own submissions without any human intervention whatsoever, we're going to be having an entirely different conversation