3 ms·
Yea, that’s a pretty good analogy. A singing dog is impressive but not able to replace human singers. From what I’ve seen so far, AI tools create technically im
by rebuilder 4y ago
Yea, that’s a pretty good analogy. A singing dog is impressive but not able to replace human singers. From what I’ve seen so far, AI tools create technically impressive but generic and derivative works, and on their own, can’t do what a human artist does in terms of understanding the context of what they are requested to do.
It’s possible that doesn’t matter to most people, and the art world will have to realise that mass-produced schlock is all the public really wants. We’ll see.
- stavros 4y agoThere's also the possibility they'll get better, possibly much better than humans. Given how much they've improved recently, that's a very very big possibility.
- rebuilder 4y agoI’m not sure what it would mean for AI to get “better” at art than humans. I expect we couldn’t understand the work it creates at that point.
- stavros 4y agoWell, if AI is worse at art than us now, it means that we currently have a quality metric, otherwise "worse" means nothing. For an AI to get better than humans, it means that the humans are now the group that's worse at art.
- vagrantJin 4y agoYou mention "better than humans" like its some profound realization. It's like saying: for hammering, a hammer is better than my pinky finger. That's kind of the point of tools.
- stavros 4y agoThis "art is just a job we need done" take comes right after a comment about how voice acting is a uniquely human thing that AIs will never be able to do, and I'm finding the disconnect interesting.