This is my argument. Eventually, we'll have computers capable of generating good art that moves its human audience as intended.
And in the meantime, there are artists who utilize generative AI as a tool, who learn to prompt exactly, and then curate the best results from the basilisks, much the way photographers determine what to shoot, and how to manipulate lenses, exposure and lighting in order to get the optimal effect.
Sadly, current LLMs consume a whole lot of resources, way more than the process of human beings doing art. So it's a long, long road to us getting to where generative AI is actually economic.
Good reference, but I feel Data is a poor example.
Data was proved to be both intelligent and self aware, and even though consciousness was inconclusive he was considered sentient.
He was able to create poetry and art, only initially by algorithmic imitation because he didn’t understand it. As he grew as a “person” his artistic pursuits, painting, poetry, music, and literature, defined his character because he himself chased their meaning, not because someone asked him to peruse them.
Edit: also I’d like to point out that Data has been both horny and sad
Definitely good points you are making, but his art has also variously been described as soulless or things to that effect, because he can perfectly play a musical piece or make an almost photorealistic painting, but struggles to go beyond surface concepts (not to mention when he is asked to sculpt music).
Though ultimately i would agree that data is not the best example, because as you said he sometimes gets a taste of what he is lacking, and also, because he has an actual consciousness.
I think one of the reasons why AI ""art"" appeals to those on the right is that it is "objectively" beautiful and in the future probably "perfect" as well, since they see our entire existance as metrics, data and numbers
24 replies
Original:
Read more
/back to 💩posting
I think the computer told me to can never be a viable excuse when determining responsibility for a poor decision.
A manager can assert they were advised by the computer, but in the end, the human being must be held responsible.
Case in point, Iran Air Flight 655
Why not? Emotion is a biochemical reaction. So it can be simulated.
This is my argument. Eventually, we'll have computers capable of generating good art that moves its human audience as intended.
And in the meantime, there are artists who utilize generative AI as a tool, who learn to prompt exactly, and then curate the best results from the basilisks, much the way photographers determine what to shoot, and how to manipulate lenses, exposure and lighting in order to get the optimal effect.
Sadly, current LLMs consume a whole lot of resources, way more than the process of human beings doing art. So it's a long, long road to us getting to where generative AI is actually economic.
* stimulated ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
A computer is the best at plagiarism, therefore it is the best at art
Good artists copy, great artists steal?
But people accused me of sticking my dick in the floppy drive
A computer also cannot consent.
A computer is a machine. It cannot deny consent.
Maybe I should delete all those photos with the cover slid off and my hand touching its naughty bits and bytes.
Wasn’t this the plot of Ex Machina?
God, imagine the world if computers had to consent for the filth we force them to see...
“Dildo, may I insert you?“
Well, was it floppy?
3 and a half inch floppy
This is a great and succinct summary of the core issue of "ai". Without consciousness there can never be anything that makes art art.
Just Data algorithmically crafting poems about cat facts, if you excuse the trek reference.
I'll always excuse a trek reference.
Good reference, but I feel Data is a poor example.
Data was proved to be both intelligent and self aware, and even though consciousness was inconclusive he was considered sentient.
He was able to create poetry and art, only initially by algorithmic imitation because he didn’t understand it. As he grew as a “person” his artistic pursuits, painting, poetry, music, and literature, defined his character because he himself chased their meaning, not because someone asked him to peruse them.
Edit: also I’d like to point out that Data has been both horny and sad
Definitely good points you are making, but his art has also variously been described as soulless or things to that effect, because he can perfectly play a musical piece or make an almost photorealistic painting, but struggles to go beyond surface concepts (not to mention when he is asked to sculpt music).
Though ultimately i would agree that data is not the best example, because as you said he sometimes gets a taste of what he is lacking, and also, because he has an actual consciousness.
I think one of the reasons why AI ""art"" appeals to those on the right is that it is "objectively" beautiful and in the future probably "perfect" as well, since they see our entire existance as metrics, data and numbers
I'm sure the AI bros are working on it.
Can't argue with that.