3 ms·
Indeed. It's entirely arbitrary. I think, in using terms like "rational" the grandparent is confusing AI with science and presuming some kind of objectivity. O
by nonrandomstring 2y ago
Indeed. It's entirely arbitrary.
I think, in using terms like "rational" the grandparent is confusing
AI with science and presuming some kind of objectivity. One cannot
make any sensible claim about what is "more superior" (the "more" is
redundant by the way) since quality of art and meaning is not arranged
on any cardinal scale. Humans get to define what is better, and that's
the final judgement. And should they choose to define AI as
"meaningless", then it's meaningless.
Now as to whether it will be "more prolific", that's a another matter.
Cockroaches are already far more prolific than humans.
- int_19h 2y agoI think they are arguing that by already established criteria, AI art can easily exceed human art in quality. So we can of course rejig our criteria, but in doing so we cannot help but acknowledge that the original ones no longer cut it.