3 ms·
Not around here, the "Ai will never replace artists" sentiment due to the failures with hands is much more frequent on Twitter among artists. Not that I disagre
by atleastoptimal 4y ago
Not around here, the "Ai will never replace artists" sentiment due to the failures with hands is much more frequent on Twitter among artists. Not that I disagree with their frustration, but the optimism that it will always be second best to pure human creativity seems like egoistic coping, which has been proven because looking at recent generations from Stable Diffusion, the hand issue is nearly solved.
I'm just extrapolating that kind of wishful thinking to anyone who thinks that AI will just be a tool for limited uses, always inferior to the less naïve human whose multi-modal efficiency could never be matched.
There's nothing against the laws of physics that prevent AI from becoming superhuman in all domains. There are people who nevertheless claim AGI is impossible because of handwavy reasons.
- vba616 4y agoI just asked ChatGPT for something today; I framed it in terms of a question in an attempt not to influence it - is there a...? And it told me firmly "yes" followed by fiction, with a plausible link that went nowhere. Honestly, I'm not entirely sure it was complete fiction, it was so plausible and what I wanted to hear. But I couldn't find it with Google. What's bothering me is not just people saying this is like a human being, but people saying the next generation, the progression will bring us closer to a human mind. "Better", if it is more deceptive, will be worse. Improving what it is already good at will produce something but not a human-like mind and not a superhuman oracle. Humans have eyeballs, but an artificial eye is never going to be a human-like mind no matter how much you develop it and whether it is better or worse than a human eye.