3 ms·

Not saying there won't be those who do, but caring if something was created by AI instead of a human is about as intelligent as being bothered by your neighbor

Not saying there won't be those who do, but caring if something was created by AI instead of a human is about as intelligent as being bothered by your neighbor being a certain nationality, or boycotting a movie because one of the actors has the "wrong" skin color. It matters what we consume, plenty of humans peddle rotten ideas and false narratives. With AI, I'd look into the models and the intentions of those who created/run it. What sort of content it delivers. Just as it makes sense with human authors to look up their biography and publishing history.

mikeg8 4y ago
I disagree. I think humans have a higher creative ceiling and so the truly moving, life altering pieces of art will always need that human element; I’d rather not waste my time consuming the AI content when it’s peaks are lower. AI content will be like modern pop songs and super hero movies. They fit a formula and people will still consider them “great” because the bar has been lowered by algorithms and reduced appetite for risk. but deep down we know they are not in the same league as works from The Beatles, Sting, or Martin Scorsese.
somenameforme 4y ago
Here [1] is a picture of the Mona Lisa. Even if one isn't really into art, you can't help but be drawn into that smile. What did it mean? What was she thinking? What did Leonardo see, and when painting it did he intend to convey what he saw? Or was it a mystery to himself as well, something unbelievably well conveyed in the painting itself? The reasons these questions are so fun to consider is because we know the answers exist, even if we also know we shall never know them. By contrast had this image just been something output by yet another neural network generator, there would be little to no interest of the same sort, as you would know that anything you infer beyond the most surface level is exactly the same as seeing shapes in the clouds. [1] - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Mona_Lisa%2C_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci%2C_from_C2RMF.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Mona_Lis...
- trompetenaccoun 4y ago
  Being into art, I think your example perfectly demonstrates why we can't get AI soon enough. There is no good reason for thousands of tourists to crowd around the Mona Lisa on a daily basis. They don't even understand what they're looking at. Would people pay millions of dollars for an AI generated black square NFT? Maybe some would too, it really shows the retardation of the entire space. With the mainstream it's not even about art and craftsmanship but about big names and make-believe. And that's not just art but all fields including science to a degree. When we get AI, hopefully more people are going to start focusing on substance instead of marketing and illusion.

mikeg8 4y ago

I disagree. I think humans have a higher creative ceiling and so the truly moving, life altering pieces of art will always need that human element; I’d rather not waste my time consuming the AI content when it’s peaks are lower. AI content will be like modern pop songs and super hero movies. They fit a formula and people will still consider them “great” because the bar has been lowered by algorithms and reduced appetite for risk. but deep down we know they are not in the same league as works from The Beatles, Sting, or Martin Scorsese.

somenameforme 4y ago

Here [1] is a picture of the Mona Lisa. Even if one isn't really into art, you can't help but be drawn into that smile. What did it mean? What was she thinking? What did Leonardo see, and when painting it did he intend to convey what he saw? Or was it a mystery to himself as well, something unbelievably well conveyed in the painting itself? The reasons these questions are so fun to consider is because we know the answers exist, even if we also know we shall never know them. By contrast had this image just been something output by yet another neural network generator, there would be little to no interest of the same sort, as you would know that anything you infer beyond the most surface level is exactly the same as seeing shapes in the clouds. [1] - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Mona_Lisa%2C_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci%2C_from_C2RMF.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Mona_Lis...

trompetenaccoun 4y ago
Being into art, I think your example perfectly demonstrates why we can't get AI soon enough. There is no good reason for thousands of tourists to crowd around the Mona Lisa on a daily basis. They don't even understand what they're looking at. Would people pay millions of dollars for an AI generated black square NFT? Maybe some would too, it really shows the retardation of the entire space. With the mainstream it's not even about art and craftsmanship but about big names and make-believe. And that's not just art but all fields including science to a degree. When we get AI, hopefully more people are going to start focusing on substance instead of marketing and illusion.