Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Obvious Answers's avatar

I think a lot of this makes some assumptions that might not hold.

Creativity for example. It doesn't need to be creative. It needs to recognize only some pattern, any pattern, in what people like or don't from it that will allow it to appear creative. AI could become truly creative. But even if not the question isn't whether it is or not. A lot of the AI game isn't about what it can or can't do. It's about what we can or can't detect.

Thought experiments help. An autistic person doesn't intuit someones emotional state. They have to get there by analysis if they pick up the skill. So, if they do pick up the skill and can appear to the outsider as if they do intuit emotions they haven't gained an ability they lacked. They've masked a weakness. But how would you know unless they reveal it?

Also any conversation about the ethical implications of AI art needs to be about setting standards true of human or machine. Not with machine in mind. Artists frequently accuse AI of "stealing art" but that's not how it functions. Not all of it anyway, maybe some does. It's pattern recognition and regurgitation not splicing of existing things. It is learning, faster, but in much the same way a human does. If it moved a pen to draw does that change the rules? If it is only trained on public domain materials and still produces similar quality results does it disprove the accusation?

There's a lot of meat to the topic and not a lot of people with the backgrounds needed to really answer. So the conversation online is always missing huge pieces.

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts