4 ms·
Further to your point, comparing humans to AI is not just misunderstanding AI, but also looks past how humans create and choose the styles which this AI is now
by quitit 4y ago
Further to your point, comparing humans to AI is not just misunderstanding AI, but also looks past how humans create and choose the styles which this AI is now reproducing through a statical approach. Without the human guidance the AI would be bland, AI is limited to the walls of whatever it has been exposed to - humans are not.
The AI emulates. Humans create. - The significance here is not trivial.
- practice9 4y agoHumans emulate as well, and produce bland art as well. I've seen lots of human-made art (especially on Artstation) that failed to elicit any emotional response in me. The reason people are having this discussion is a fear of AI creating aesthetically pleasing and deep emotionally through statistical approach. And the deeper fear that AI can potentially "hack" our senses by providing us with exactly what we want to see, read or hear (statistically). i.e. if some subset of art is pushing our biological buttons more than all other art, and the effect is generalizable over human population, what would that say about us?
- quitit 4y agoI think the point has been missed. AI is bound. Humans are not. To better illustrate that difference: Just because anecdotally some human might produce crap doesn't mean that is the limit of all humans.
- smaudet 4y agoWell put. AI is an evolutionary death, in a sense. True Intelligence is not, at the point at which it is not, it is no longer artificial, and then ethical concerns must apply (rights for so-called AI citizens, etc.)
- optimalsolver 4y ago>AI is limited to the walls of whatever it has been exposed to - humans are not So you can imagine new colors?