I am saying AI won’t have biological living experiences, only abstract concepts of biological living experiences that are fed into it.
You are reading way more into my point than my actual point. Another way of saying it is that we can try to understand a dog and explain why dogs do what they do, but we are not actual dogs and cannot use the actual experience of being a dog when creating art. Or how someone will never know the exact experience of someone of a other race even though they can understand the concepts of differences. Experience is different than understanding an abstract.
Firstly, @snooggums@kbin.social = @kibiz0r@midwest.social ? I was responding to the latter, so when you say I am saying (implicit format, to clarify, when I said X, I was [meaning to say] Y. ) I don’t know which part of what reply fulfills X, unless you just mean to be emphatic. (e.g. He’s mad! Mad, I tell you! ) So my thread context is lost.
Secondly the AI’s lack of human experience seems irrelevant. Human artists commonly guess at what dogs think / feel, what it is to be a racial minority, another sex or whatever it is to not be themselves. And we’re not great at it. AI, guessing at what it is to be human doesn’t have a high bar to overcome. We depend on abstracts and third-party information all the time to create empathizable characters.
For that matter, among those empathizable characters, synthetic beings are included. The whole point of Blade Runner 2049 is that everyone, synthetic or otherwise, is valid, is deserving of personhood.
Again, you can say by fiat an AI has the personhood of a toaster, but that doesn’t make the content it creates less quality or less real. And given in the past how often we’ve disparaged art for being made by women, by non-whites, by Jews, we as a social collective have demonstrated our opinion is easily biased to arbitrarily favor those sources we like.
You’re not going to find any way to objectively justify including only human beings as qualified to make art.
Well, I am not saying that only humans can make art. I think a lot of other animals are fully capable of making art, even if we frequently call it instinct. Hell, bird mating rituals are better displays of physical dancing than humans in a lot of cases!
I am saying what we currently call AI, which is just mismashing existing art and not creating anything new or with any kind of complex emotions, will make technical art that has no depth or background that is commonly associated with art.
I agree with you here, that right now, generative AI is still a far cry from what media managers, capitalists and layfolk imagine it is. Currently, in order to get something interesting from generative AI, you have to know how to describe what you want so that the AI understands (or yields favorable results) and then curate the best results from several attempts, then take the piece you like, run it through, and provide more based on this image prompts. Lather, rinse, repeat until you have something that serves your purpose.
Regarding the creation of art and the definition of what counts as art, we’ve actually seen some instances where artists have toyed with the idea, such as Comedian by Maurizio Cattelan and Love Is In The Bin by Banksy (which failed to operate when it was auctioned, and is still regarded as a work worthy of the £18.5 million paid for by its current owner).
So there’s no objective way to decide what is or isn’t art. And some day, a machine may have the capacity to actually make art that resonates with us, and we’ll have to contend with the dilemma that even though this art piece was computed using a lot of media from human history, if we condemn it because it was artificially derived from countless components of human culture, we’d be hypocritical if we were to accept a similar work from a human artist.
But you are right, we’re not on the cusp of wondering if human capacity has been met or exceeded by a machine, though plenty of capitalists do wish it were so, and might invest in pursuit of such technology.
I am saying AI won’t have biological living experiences, only abstract concepts of biological living experiences that are fed into it.
You are reading way more into my point than my actual point. Another way of saying it is that we can try to understand a dog and explain why dogs do what they do, but we are not actual dogs and cannot use the actual experience of being a dog when creating art. Or how someone will never know the exact experience of someone of a other race even though they can understand the concepts of differences. Experience is different than understanding an abstract.
Firstly, @snooggums@kbin.social = @kibiz0r@midwest.social ? I was responding to the latter, so when you say I am saying (implicit format, to clarify, when I said X, I was [meaning to say] Y. ) I don’t know which part of what reply fulfills X, unless you just mean to be emphatic. (e.g. He’s mad! Mad, I tell you! ) So my thread context is lost.
Secondly the AI’s lack of human experience seems irrelevant. Human artists commonly guess at what dogs think / feel, what it is to be a racial minority, another sex or whatever it is to not be themselves. And we’re not great at it. AI, guessing at what it is to be human doesn’t have a high bar to overcome. We depend on abstracts and third-party information all the time to create empathizable characters.
For that matter, among those empathizable characters, synthetic beings are included. The whole point of Blade Runner 2049 is that everyone, synthetic or otherwise, is valid, is deserving of personhood.
Again, you can say by fiat an AI has the personhood of a toaster, but that doesn’t make the content it creates less quality or less real. And given in the past how often we’ve disparaged art for being made by women, by non-whites, by Jews, we as a social collective have demonstrated our opinion is easily biased to arbitrarily favor those sources we like.
You’re not going to find any way to objectively justify including only human beings as qualified to make art.
Well, I am not saying that only humans can make art. I think a lot of other animals are fully capable of making art, even if we frequently call it instinct. Hell, bird mating rituals are better displays of physical dancing than humans in a lot of cases!
I am saying what we currently call AI, which is just mismashing existing art and not creating anything new or with any kind of complex emotions, will make technical art that has no depth or background that is commonly associated with art.
I agree with you here, that right now, generative AI is still a far cry from what media managers, capitalists and layfolk imagine it is. Currently, in order to get something interesting from generative AI, you have to know how to describe what you want so that the AI understands (or yields favorable results) and then curate the best results from several attempts, then take the piece you like, run it through, and provide more based on this image prompts. Lather, rinse, repeat until you have something that serves your purpose.
Regarding the creation of art and the definition of what counts as art, we’ve actually seen some instances where artists have toyed with the idea, such as Comedian by Maurizio Cattelan and Love Is In The Bin by Banksy (which failed to operate when it was auctioned, and is still regarded as a work worthy of the £18.5 million paid for by its current owner).
So there’s no objective way to decide what is or isn’t art. And some day, a machine may have the capacity to actually make art that resonates with us, and we’ll have to contend with the dilemma that even though this art piece was computed using a lot of media from human history, if we condemn it because it was artificially derived from countless components of human culture, we’d be hypocritical if we were to accept a similar work from a human artist.
But you are right, we’re not on the cusp of wondering if human capacity has been met or exceeded by a machine, though plenty of capitalists do wish it were so, and might invest in pursuit of such technology.