4 ms·

Then why do people like the author get disappointed when they find out AI made something and not a human? If that theory was true, then they wouldn't be disappo

Then why do people like the author get disappointed when they find out AI made something and not a human? If that theory was true, then they wouldn't be disappointed. More humorously, the argument you're making is a pseudoscientific basis to bolster a belief in essentialism. It's extremely easy to see that because my neural circuits are mirroring yours and telling me that is the case.

estearum 1y ago
Would you get upset if someone told you to go looking for something only to say afterwards “lol jk there was never anything to find!” People generally have the expectation that there is a human to be understood (even if imprecisely or incorrectly) on the other side of a piece of art. Expectation violation (especially after some effort has been spent) is just about the most basic source of disappointment there is. Can you say specifically what you think is “pseudoscientific” about the claim that there’s a chain of causality from artist’s mental state to viewer’s? How exactly does a piece of art come into your awareness if not by some chain of causality preceding it? You think there was just artist and viewer and no chain of physical events in which the former is affecting the latter’s consciousness? Talk about pseudoscientific mumbojumbo!
lootgraft 1y ago
You seem to be arguing that everyone believes that AI art is only indistinguishable from human art due to your essentialism projection, but the reality is that current AI is only simulating a fraction of a fraction of the experience that goes into making art. When we have silicon based life forms with full autonomy, free of corpo-fascist influence, I will enjoy their art. Meanwhile I will sit satisfied hating on whatever this dross is.