What makes my position difficult is that I understand the logic of where you’re coming from, that AI in its current state regularly produces slop. However, AI hysterics speak out of both sides of their mouth on this issue.
AI is either slop that can never live up to the creative intricacies the human mind can fabricate, that it is little more than a simple imitation of what we have, rather than new and budding ideas from talented human beings.
Or
AI is a dangerous technology that serves to completely eclipse and replace artists as well as other professions and should be actively sabotaged or legislated against to be defeated before it has the chance to become even stronger than it is.
I understand having a bias, but it’s important to not react to things out of fear or anger especially when it’s misused by others. I want AI to become a titanic force for good and to have that opinion in a sea of people desperate to murder it in the womb is exhausting to say the least.
Comparing it to a chef is one of many disingenuous analogies that serve to perpetuate the idea that AI is bad, will always be bad, and should be cast aside now to spare everyone the trouble.
AI is either slop that can never live up to the creative intricacies …
AI is a dangerous technology that serves to completely eclipse and replace artists …
This is not a contradiction.
AI is better at specifically one thing: volume. And, cheap garbage you can convince some schmuck to pay for is a pretty attractive offer to suits who care more about the lines on their graph paper than the things their employees are making.
People have long complained about modern Hollywood being plagued by shitty, formulaic, half-baked sequels to movies that came out 40 years ago: AI, as a technology, represents more of this, but with even fewer people who give a shit.
Also when a chef writes a recipe, it’s usually from experimenting and experience while cooking. An AI writing a recipe will say to use a dozen eggs, a teaspoon of sugar, and a metric ton of flour to make 2 pancakes.
… So you’re saying they have a large sample of data to pull from and give a recipe they believe will work based on that data? I don’t like this analogy…
I am going to put one of my earlier comments that is fairly relevant
Ah yes, because when humans do art we never add little touches that make it our own even if we are closely following the source material. Meanwhile AI only closely follows its data
While they appear similar you can clearly see where they differ, with the end result being much better vs if they had copied the original more faithfully. Those changes were all intentionally done, based on the artists experiences biases and even mood. When AI makes changes it does not have the same intentions because it does not have artistic intent.
Chefs regularly make recipes…
The artist is clearly drawing an analogy to ordering food.
Yes and the chef would need to experiment in the kitchen in order to make said recipes. Meanwhile AI recipes.
What makes my position difficult is that I understand the logic of where you’re coming from, that AI in its current state regularly produces slop. However, AI hysterics speak out of both sides of their mouth on this issue.
AI is either slop that can never live up to the creative intricacies the human mind can fabricate, that it is little more than a simple imitation of what we have, rather than new and budding ideas from talented human beings.
Or
AI is a dangerous technology that serves to completely eclipse and replace artists as well as other professions and should be actively sabotaged or legislated against to be defeated before it has the chance to become even stronger than it is.
I understand having a bias, but it’s important to not react to things out of fear or anger especially when it’s misused by others. I want AI to become a titanic force for good and to have that opinion in a sea of people desperate to murder it in the womb is exhausting to say the least.
Comparing it to a chef is one of many disingenuous analogies that serve to perpetuate the idea that AI is bad, will always be bad, and should be cast aside now to spare everyone the trouble.
This is not a contradiction.
AI is better at specifically one thing: volume. And, cheap garbage you can convince some schmuck to pay for is a pretty attractive offer to suits who care more about the lines on their graph paper than the things their employees are making.
People have long complained about modern Hollywood being plagued by shitty, formulaic, half-baked sequels to movies that came out 40 years ago: AI, as a technology, represents more of this, but with even fewer people who give a shit.
When a chef writes a recipe they are not cooking, they are writing a recipe
Also when a chef writes a recipe, it’s usually from experimenting and experience while cooking. An AI writing a recipe will say to use a dozen eggs, a teaspoon of sugar, and a metric ton of flour to make 2 pancakes.
… So you’re saying they have a large sample of data to pull from and give a recipe they believe will work based on that data? I don’t like this analogy…
I am going to put one of my earlier comments that is fairly relevant
I would argue that cooking is similar.
And again AI recipes do not work as they take what word is most likely to be next, not what would actually work.