5 ms·

It's a title very loosely using the word "soul" for shock value. They don't actually believe in Christianity. Words like "soul" and "creativity" are pointless

It's a title very loosely using the word "soul" for shock value. They don't actually believe in Christianity. Words like "soul" and "creativity" are pointless anyhow -- human AI has stomped every one of those bounds, why not nature's AI?

akprasad 3y ago
The piece defines its use of "soul" quite clearly: > But there is a fourth sense in which when we talk about [a soul], we all mean more or less the same thing: what it means for someone to bare it, for music to have it, for eyes to be the window to it, for it to be uplifted or depraved. Even if, religiously, we know by revelation that other people possess them for eternity, we only engage with or know anything about them at a quotidian level by way of the same cues and interactions that a more this-worldly view would take as their sum total: bright eyes, a dejected slump, a sudden manic inspiration or a confession of regret.
sophacles 3y ago
The concept of a soul is not limited to Christianity.
- boringuser2 3y ago
  So? Do you expect people the entire world over to have a Rolodex of fairytales that used to be told in your country?
  - sophacles 3y ago
    > Do you expect people the entire world over to have a Rolodex of fairytales that used to be told in your country? Well no, I don't expect that of most people. I do however expect those who claim to refute an idea to show slightly less than complete and utter ignorance of the idea they claim to refute. I wouldn't trust a fool who tried to tell me water wasn't wet because sand in the desert is made of silicon. Likewise I won't trust someone who can't turn on a computer to tell me why my code is broken. > So? Well, it's basically the same as above - I can tell you are quite sure of yourself. However I can't reach the same level of surety about anything you say about souls, since you clearly don't even have a basic understanding of the concept. You may even be right, but I prefer to form my opinions from a place of knowledge rather than ignorance (no matter how aggressively confident that ignorance is). I was just trying to help you make your point somewhat intelligible to other people who dislike arguments from ignorance.
    - boringuser2 3y ago
      Having an extensive knowledge of fake stories from a variety of countries means you have an extensive knowledge of absolutely nothing. Foreign religions deserve equally as much derision as domestic religions. How absolutely silly the things they believe are. You'd have an actual point if you were talking about real philosophy, but you aren't. If you want to discuss the topic outside the realm of ignorance, you discuss it from a philosophical lens. Also, the idea that you propose, that merely knowing useless things makes you learned or an intellectual, isn't just silly, it's disgusting.
      - sophacles 3y ago
        I think you are confusing what I was saying with something else. It's general knowledge that the concept of a soul is a common the world over. There have been quite a few philosphers that have delved deeply into the topic, many of them foundational to philosphy and deeply impactful on science. > You'd have an actual point if you were talking about real philosophy, but you aren't. You mean like Kant or maybe Descartes? I think you suspect I'm trying to argue for some religion or another or even just a general pro-religion stance. I'm not - I'm merely pointing out your statement showed ignorant dismissal of a concept that's pretty big and has an impact on most cultures. Asking the question "does an elephant have a soul?" does not imply a religious treatise - souls are conceptually what sets humans apart from animals (in many, many traditions) and asking the question "does $x have a soul?" is often asking (as in this case) "Are humans really that special?". Presumably the authors in this articl are expting their audience be any one of several billion people from places where that metaphor is a cultural trope that everyone knows. > Words like "soul" and "creativity" are pointless anyhow -- human AI has stomped every one of those bounds, why not nature's AI? Sounds like you might have some thoughts on "Are humans really that special?". If you want to be taken seriously, knowing about the multiple viewpoints, and being able to refute those actual points is helpful. If you want to come across as a buffoon and jerk, then just make sweeping statements against a strawman, and show ignorance of the concept you're discussing. > Foreign religions deserve equally as much derision as domestic religions I don't know what foreign or domestic religion is. An awful lot of religions are practiced in many countries, so I don't follow what you're saying there. As for derision of religion... nah. Seems like a lot of futile effort. Why put everyone (on all sides) in a bad mood all the time by picking fights over it when no one's beliefs (or lack thereof) will change because some insults were hurled around?
dingnuts 3y ago
You're joking, right? I haven't seen a single piece of compelling AI art, and I've seen a lot of it. It all has the soul and creativity of stock photography. The only generated images I've seen that had some sort of meaning were AI images so carefully chosen or manipulated that the meaning was as attributable to the AI as the meaning behind Starry Night is attributable to Van Gogh's paintbrush
- boringuser2 3y ago
  AI art wins competitions assessed by professional art critics.

akprasad 3y ago

The piece defines its use of "soul" quite clearly: > But there is a fourth sense in which when we talk about [a soul], we all mean more or less the same thing: what it means for someone to bare it, for music to have it, for eyes to be the window to it, for it to be uplifted or depraved. Even if, religiously, we know by revelation that other people possess them for eternity, we only engage with or know anything about them at a quotidian level by way of the same cues and interactions that a more this-worldly view would take as their sum total: bright eyes, a dejected slump, a sudden manic inspiration or a confession of regret.

sophacles 3y ago

The concept of a soul is not limited to Christianity.

boringuser2 3y ago
So? Do you expect people the entire world over to have a Rolodex of fairytales that used to be told in your country?
- sophacles 3y ago
  > Do you expect people the entire world over to have a Rolodex of fairytales that used to be told in your country? Well no, I don't expect that of most people. I do however expect those who claim to refute an idea to show slightly less than complete and utter ignorance of the idea they claim to refute. I wouldn't trust a fool who tried to tell me water wasn't wet because sand in the desert is made of silicon. Likewise I won't trust someone who can't turn on a computer to tell me why my code is broken. > So? Well, it's basically the same as above - I can tell you are quite sure of yourself. However I can't reach the same level of surety about anything you say about souls, since you clearly don't even have a basic understanding of the concept. You may even be right, but I prefer to form my opinions from a place of knowledge rather than ignorance (no matter how aggressively confident that ignorance is). I was just trying to help you make your point somewhat intelligible to other people who dislike arguments from ignorance.
  - boringuser2 3y ago
    Having an extensive knowledge of fake stories from a variety of countries means you have an extensive knowledge of absolutely nothing. Foreign religions deserve equally as much derision as domestic religions. How absolutely silly the things they believe are. You'd have an actual point if you were talking about real philosophy, but you aren't. If you want to discuss the topic outside the realm of ignorance, you discuss it from a philosophical lens. Also, the idea that you propose, that merely knowing useless things makes you learned or an intellectual, isn't just silly, it's disgusting.
    - sophacles 3y ago
      I think you are confusing what I was saying with something else. It's general knowledge that the concept of a soul is a common the world over. There have been quite a few philosphers that have delved deeply into the topic, many of them foundational to philosphy and deeply impactful on science. > You'd have an actual point if you were talking about real philosophy, but you aren't. You mean like Kant or maybe Descartes? I think you suspect I'm trying to argue for some religion or another or even just a general pro-religion stance. I'm not - I'm merely pointing out your statement showed ignorant dismissal of a concept that's pretty big and has an impact on most cultures. Asking the question "does an elephant have a soul?" does not imply a religious treatise - souls are conceptually what sets humans apart from animals (in many, many traditions) and asking the question "does $x have a soul?" is often asking (as in this case) "Are humans really that special?". Presumably the authors in this articl are expting their audience be any one of several billion people from places where that metaphor is a cultural trope that everyone knows. > Words like "soul" and "creativity" are pointless anyhow -- human AI has stomped every one of those bounds, why not nature's AI? Sounds like you might have some thoughts on "Are humans really that special?". If you want to be taken seriously, knowing about the multiple viewpoints, and being able to refute those actual points is helpful. If you want to come across as a buffoon and jerk, then just make sweeping statements against a strawman, and show ignorance of the concept you're discussing. > Foreign religions deserve equally as much derision as domestic religions I don't know what foreign or domestic religion is. An awful lot of religions are practiced in many countries, so I don't follow what you're saying there. As for derision of religion... nah. Seems like a lot of futile effort. Why put everyone (on all sides) in a bad mood all the time by picking fights over it when no one's beliefs (or lack thereof) will change because some insults were hurled around?

dingnuts 3y ago

You're joking, right? I haven't seen a single piece of compelling AI art, and I've seen a lot of it. It all has the soul and creativity of stock photography. The only generated images I've seen that had some sort of meaning were AI images so carefully chosen or manipulated that the meaning was as attributable to the AI as the meaning behind Starry Night is attributable to Van Gogh's paintbrush

boringuser2 3y ago
AI art wins competitions assessed by professional art critics.