3 ms·

I think the AI mysticism has confused people about this technology. A photographer using a camera doesn't build the building, create the natural surroundings,

I think the AI mysticism has confused people about this technology. A photographer using a camera doesn't build the building, create the natural surroundings, set the sun shining, invest billions of dollars into the global R&D supply chain to create the camera, and yet, when they point this device at the infinite of creation and push a button, the output is theirs. I am of the firm belief that these AI/LLM systems are analogous to an 'information camera'. Just as the individual 'language photographer' at the prompt didn't create the existing human language, textbooks, plays, novels, or the billion dollar supercomputers, or the trillion dollar semiconductor supply chain, they did point/prompt at a particular part of this infinite Babel's library, and they pushed a button.

mrtksn 3y ago
The analogy is fine but it doesn’t address the issue people are having with AI stuff. When you zoom in enough there’s always ambiguity on the definition, today we can’t even define what is life and at what point exactly it starts or ends however we have birthdays and cemeteries since the beginning of the civilization. The philosophical discussion is nice and useful but when it comes to policies it’s better to address the practical issues. The difference between photography and AI generated content is that the “metry” part is light on substance I AI. There’s this Swedish artist who build a “camera” which is a device that looks like camera but doesn’t have any lens or something, instead generates an image based on the location and weather data. Take a look: https://www.creativeapplications.net/objects/paragraphica-context-to-image-ai-camera/ https://www.creativeapplications.net/objects/paragraphica-co... So yeah, the philosophical discussion is there and has plenty of meant to chew :)
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  We also have laws around cameras and complex discussions around how the ownership plays out when images of famous people are taken, or images of possibly inappropriate content are generated. I think we would've headed down the wrong path if we would've said from the beginning that cameras own the output.

mrtksn 3y ago

The analogy is fine but it doesn’t address the issue people are having with AI stuff. When you zoom in enough there’s always ambiguity on the definition, today we can’t even define what is life and at what point exactly it starts or ends however we have birthdays and cemeteries since the beginning of the civilization. The philosophical discussion is nice and useful but when it comes to policies it’s better to address the practical issues. The difference between photography and AI generated content is that the “metry” part is light on substance I AI. There’s this Swedish artist who build a “camera” which is a device that looks like camera but doesn’t have any lens or something, instead generates an image based on the location and weather data. Take a look: https://www.creativeapplications.net/objects/paragraphica-context-to-image-ai-camera/ https://www.creativeapplications.net/objects/paragraphica-co... So yeah, the philosophical discussion is there and has plenty of meant to chew :)

mensetmanusman 3y ago
We also have laws around cameras and complex discussions around how the ownership plays out when images of famous people are taken, or images of possibly inappropriate content are generated. I think we would've headed down the wrong path if we would've said from the beginning that cameras own the output.