3 ms·

i was having a discussion the otehr day about how even if AIs could create movies/albums/tv shows, I don't think I'd be interested. it wasn't obvious to me unt

i was having a discussion the otehr day about how even if AIs could create movies/albums/tv shows, I don't think I'd be interested. it wasn't obvious to me until I started thinking about AI art, but so much of the value I get from a piece of media is knowing that another human made it -- i can be impressed with their skills or just be glad that somebody felt the same emotions I felt (and was able to express them). I'm sure AI will create technically amazing pieces of art someday, but it will never be able to attach a relatable backstory to it

ziddoap 2y ago
This is an interesting take! I feel like almost none of the value I get out of a piece of media is knowing who/what made it. I think media either stands on its own merit or it doesn't. It could be made by monkeys on typewriters, AI, whatever. The media itself is what matters to me, or makes me feel emotions, etc. Not the fact that a human made it. It just so happens that I haven't experienced media made by AI (or monkeys on typewriters) that is as good as the stuff made by humans. But I don't think that'll hold forever. A shitty movie still sucks even if made by someone I am impressed by or relate to. One of my favorite book series as a kid was written by someone I now have zero respect for, yet I can and still do enjoy the books. And I'm sure I'd still enjoy those same books if they were written exactly the same way but by a different author or AI. However, this is the first time I've really thought much about it, so my opinion might be different after some further introspection.
- parpfish 2y ago
  I don’t judge the quality of the work based on the weather the creator was a “good person”, but rather that there’s a person at all
  - ziddoap 2y ago
    I get what you were saying. I was just mulling over the general idea in my comment. Caring about who made it or caring about what made it are pretty close questions in my mind, so I touched on both, hoping that maybe it would lead to more conversation.
    - parpfish 2y ago
      a related thing i've thought about: imagine that there was an AI that could generate infinite funny cat gifs. do you still like the gifs as much knowing that the cats are real? is it any different from people posting staged videos and trying to pass them off as real?
the_af 2y ago
> it wasn't obvious to me until I started thinking about AI art, but so much of the value I get from a piece of media is knowing that another human made it I feel the same way. Increasingly, it seems we're making it possible for AI to create art (movies, novels, paintings, music) and eventually be involved in everything related to art: reviewing said art, commenting about it online, maybe even having heated discussions about it. But art is about human connection. It's not something we want to automate. The article tangentially mentions something about art becoming accessible to non-artists, i.e. people who wouldn't be able to "create" otherwise (what the author calls the "illusion", or "faking it"). But maybe art isn't supposed to be "democratic" in this sense; maybe those who cannot directly create in their preferred art form should instead enjoy it, or discuss it -- or better, practice more and get good at it the hard way?
altruios 2y ago
> but it will never be able to attach a relatable backstory to it I think your human bias is showing. I suspect there will be (specifically) 1 AI - that gains that mindshare. It's all branding! There's a gaggle of pop stars, and one taylor swift... likewise there will be heaps of AI but only one pop_star9000(version3.1415.9265.3589.7932.3846.2643.38_custom_sauce11) But I would listen to a robot if and only if I believed it could tell me of its own experience... By relating an alien experience with metaphor in rhythm to a popping dance groove.
- the_af 2y ago
  > But I would listen to a robot if and only if I believed it could tell me of its own experience... By relating an alien experience with metaphor in rhythm to a popping dance groove. Isn't this almost equivalent to saying "I would listen to a robot if and only if it was human?". A robot that could tell you its experience would be a living thing. An LLM cannot tell you its "own experience" because it has none. You'd be asking it to be human, or human-like (or even animal-like).
  - altruios 2y ago
    I did not say LLM, I said robot - which is an entity that can potentially have 'an experience' of some kind or another.
    - the_af 2y ago
      Right, I got you. What I'm saying is that such a robot would be effectively "human".

ziddoap 2y ago

This is an interesting take! I feel like almost none of the value I get out of a piece of media is knowing who/what made it. I think media either stands on its own merit or it doesn't. It could be made by monkeys on typewriters, AI, whatever. The media itself is what matters to me, or makes me feel emotions, etc. Not the fact that a human made it. It just so happens that I haven't experienced media made by AI (or monkeys on typewriters) that is as good as the stuff made by humans. But I don't think that'll hold forever. A shitty movie still sucks even if made by someone I am impressed by or relate to. One of my favorite book series as a kid was written by someone I now have zero respect for, yet I can and still do enjoy the books. And I'm sure I'd still enjoy those same books if they were written exactly the same way but by a different author or AI. However, this is the first time I've really thought much about it, so my opinion might be different after some further introspection.

parpfish 2y ago
I don’t judge the quality of the work based on the weather the creator was a “good person”, but rather that there’s a person at all
- ziddoap 2y ago
  I get what you were saying. I was just mulling over the general idea in my comment. Caring about who made it or caring about what made it are pretty close questions in my mind, so I touched on both, hoping that maybe it would lead to more conversation.
  - parpfish 2y ago
    a related thing i've thought about: imagine that there was an AI that could generate infinite funny cat gifs. do you still like the gifs as much knowing that the cats are real? is it any different from people posting staged videos and trying to pass them off as real?

the_af 2y ago

> it wasn't obvious to me until I started thinking about AI art, but so much of the value I get from a piece of media is knowing that another human made it I feel the same way. Increasingly, it seems we're making it possible for AI to create art (movies, novels, paintings, music) and eventually be involved in everything related to art: reviewing said art, commenting about it online, maybe even having heated discussions about it. But art is about human connection. It's not something we want to automate. The article tangentially mentions something about art becoming accessible to non-artists, i.e. people who wouldn't be able to "create" otherwise (what the author calls the "illusion", or "faking it"). But maybe art isn't supposed to be "democratic" in this sense; maybe those who cannot directly create in their preferred art form should instead enjoy it, or discuss it -- or better, practice more and get good at it the hard way?

altruios 2y ago

> but it will never be able to attach a relatable backstory to it I think your human bias is showing. I suspect there will be (specifically) 1 AI - that gains that mindshare. It's all branding! There's a gaggle of pop stars, and one taylor swift... likewise there will be heaps of AI but only one pop_star9000(version3.1415.9265.3589.7932.3846.2643.38_custom_sauce11) But I would listen to a robot if and only if I believed it could tell me of its own experience... By relating an alien experience with metaphor in rhythm to a popping dance groove.

the_af 2y ago
> But I would listen to a robot if and only if I believed it could tell me of its own experience... By relating an alien experience with metaphor in rhythm to a popping dance groove. Isn't this almost equivalent to saying "I would listen to a robot if and only if it was human?". A robot that could tell you its experience would be a living thing. An LLM cannot tell you its "own experience" because it has none. You'd be asking it to be human, or human-like (or even animal-like).
- altruios 2y ago
  I did not say LLM, I said robot - which is an entity that can potentially have 'an experience' of some kind or another.
  - the_af 2y ago
    Right, I got you. What I'm saying is that such a robot would be effectively "human".