btw this is kinda an outdated viewpoint. what is even meant by "management decision"? is it decisions such as "does the train drive forward, or not?" because if that's what's meant, then yes, very much can machines make these kind of decisions. that's the whole point of studying real-time systems. they require that they can handle every possible input data case and respond to it meaningfully within a fixed maximum response time. it has nothing to do with "holding the decision maker accountable".
"AI told me to bomb this place's which just happens to be just a school full of terrorist muslim children. I'm sowwy for this war crime and I promise not to do it again by improving the model. UwU"
In that example, it sounds like the train is responsible for driving forward, driving in reverse and stopping.
The train company would want to ensure a human has agreed in writing to be held accountable for foreseeable failures of the train driving system.
Sharing my definitions, more or less, in red:
The thing that should be impossible is for the train company to hire the owner’s drunk cousin to build a self driving train system, and when people get hurt and the company is taken to court, the company is allowed to apologize + blame software + do business as usual w/o fine/penalties.
I’m thinking even at the time enough stuff was (successfully, safely) automated that they would’ve agreed.
You want everyone at your company to know that if they get dragged in front of a judge, pointing fingers at silicon will not prove a winning strategy. Hence, a computer must never make a management decision!
I'm having trouble pinning down the memroy memory, but I swear we had one or two of those. I want to say it was Lotus Spreadsheets? Gemini says there's no records of that, but that there may have been some in circulation for niche groups.
I got in a little trouble as a kid once for putting a CD in an 8in floppy slot
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
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.
43 replies
A computer is the best at plagiarism, therefore it is the best at art
Good artists copy, great artists steal?
But we just established that computers can’t be artists. Therefore they cannot steal.
So I just need to create an AI that downloads all my favorite music, books, TV, and movies. I didn't do it, the computer did it!
How nice for you to have all that content on hand to train an AI that can then go steal that content again.
Original:
Read more
/back to 💩posting
would be nice if ppl who do those decisions would always be held accountable
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
btw this is kinda an outdated viewpoint. what is even meant by "management decision"? is it decisions such as "does the train drive forward, or not?" because if that's what's meant, then yes, very much can machines make these kind of decisions. that's the whole point of studying real-time systems. they require that they can handle every possible input data case and respond to it meaningfully within a fixed maximum response time. it has nothing to do with "holding the decision maker accountable".
"AI told me to bomb this place's which just happens to be just a school full of terrorist muslim children. I'm sowwy for this war crime and I promise not to do it again by improving the model. UwU"
Literally just happened last year: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2026/mar/26/ai-got-the-blame-for-the-iran-school-bombing-the-truth-is-far-more-worrying
Computers are just scapegoats in avoiding accountability
In that example, it sounds like the train is responsible for driving forward, driving in reverse and stopping.
The train company would want to ensure a human has agreed in writing to be held accountable for foreseeable failures of the train driving system.
Sharing my definitions, more or less, in red:
The thing that should be impossible is for the train company to hire the owner’s drunk cousin to build a self driving train system, and when people get hurt and the company is taken to court, the company is allowed to apologize + blame software + do business as usual w/o fine/penalties.
I’m thinking even at the time enough stuff was (successfully, safely) automated that they would’ve agreed.
You want everyone at your company to know that if they get dragged in front of a judge, pointing fingers at silicon will not prove a winning strategy. Hence, a computer must never make a management decision!
But people accused me of sticking my dick in the floppy drive
A computer also cannot 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?
A computer is a machine. It cannot deny consent.
Neither can a dead deer on the side of the road
As carrion eaters will quickly demonstrate.
Check mate Atheists!
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
I remember back in college, I once got to touch that big black 8 inch floppy...
I'm having trouble pinning down the
memroymemory, but I swear we had one or two of those. I want to say it was Lotus Spreadsheets? Gemini says there's no records of that, but that there may have been some in circulation for niche groups.I got in a little trouble as a kid once for putting a CD in an 8in floppy slot
Yeah putting it in the wrong hole does often generate complaints.
Especially when it's too small 😮💨
Well then hopefully you didn't break anything!
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
Ok but fr Data's poetry fucks and people were being real shitbirds to him about it.
Can't argue with that.
I'm sure the AI bros are working on it.
They just want a user friendly Wang.
Christ I'm old
Some problems still need human judgment.
Bad judgement makes for good stories
Why not? Emotion is a biochemical reaction. So it can be simulated.
* stimulated ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
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.