3 ms·

It's bizarre to me that people jump to the slave conclusion when what we are talking about is well trained linear algebra. It's similar to the people that call

• opportune 4y ago
  It’s art in the sense that it’s content that we may interpret as art. The AI isn’t making art per se - the art is a product of the researchers and engineers, the artists providing the training data, and the person fiddling with the model to produce artistic content. Our brains may very well also be some combination of linear algebra, graph algorithms, distributed systems optimizing for some output. We’re trained based on our DNA programming and environment too. Early human art was just shapes and stuff humans saw out in the world, and iterating on that over time by learning from each other. The difference is that finding the next token or identifying the bird in an image is only a means to an end for us, we aren’t getting copied into a million ephemeral instances in parallel with learning done in huge batches, we have more or less one linear stream of experiences from birth to death. AI can be both like us and not like us, you can draw vague parallels between neurotransmitters and a reward function or sleep and batch training, and we can make it more or less like us over time. But we need to keep in mind how we’re different because those distinctions are important in determining how we use and treat AI - if we make it so it’s possible for us to mistreat it, we shouldn’t do that, but we also shouldn’t personify it beyond what it actually is.