https://archive.ph/tR7s6

Get fuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked

“This isn’t going to stop,” Allen told the New York Times. “Art is dead, dude. It’s over. A.I. won. Humans lost.”

“But I still want to get paid for it.”

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
16 points

Unfortunately I think that’s a bit of a liberal argument. It ascribes some ineffable quality to human creativity that AI cannot replicate.

every single time the AI argument comes down to this. “oh you just don’t trust AI cos youre a rube who believes in a soul” no motherfucker I’m just not some fucking anti-intellectual who has decided, apropros of NO research into neuroscience, that I know how the brain works and it MUST be analogous to something algorithm based machines can understand

you genuinely don’t know what you’re talking about, and you have to take so many intellectual shortcuts to derive your position that you are not worth taking seriously

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

exist in part to belittle actual artists for the sake of boosting the treat printers (or the treat printer prompters) to artist status

that’s what’s so insane to me. for the longest time, STEM folk were all about ‘artists aren’t worth respecting’ ‘oh arts degree? just put the fries in the bag lmao’

then suddenly AI art comes about and then it’s ‘look at my art! AI makes better art than anyone and it’s imperative we dump everything into it! you must respect my AI art! you must treat me like an artiste’

and now that it’s clear it’s a grift, it’s ‘art is dead, we will never beat AI, artists are back to not worth respecting’

once again, tourists visiting every creative medium they can to try and find fresh rubes for their machine

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Who are you arguing against? I never said AI was analogous to a human brain. It’s plainly not.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

here?

Unfortunately I think that’s a bit of a liberal argument. It ascribes some ineffable quality to human creativity that AI cannot replicate.

unless my lying eyes deceive me

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

When I say replicate I mean replicate an output. I.e. AI can be used to create images that are unique but categorically indistinguishable from various types of digital images that we would classify as art. I did not mean to imply that the AI models which currently exist can replicate processes that occur in the human mind.

I understand why there might be some confusion and I’m sorry if I wasn’t more clear. I genuinely dislike calling these models “neural nets” or “AI” because that implies they function as a human mind would. Anyone who understands the basics of both should know that’s not at all true.

permalink
report
parent
reply