paramach

paramach t1_iwy9ffn wrote

Reply to comment by TakenIsUsernameThis in Meta has withdrawn its Galactica AI, only 3 days after its release, following intense criticism. Meta’s misstep—and its hubris—show once again that Big Tech has a blind spot about the severe limitations of large language models in AI. by lughnasadh

The difference is, humans don't believe their own lies. They know/understand what's fiction and what's reality. AI lacks this fundamental comprehension.

−1

paramach t1_itoth6m wrote

Reply to comment by A_throwaway__acc in A.I.-Generated Art Is Already Transforming Creative Work by Gari_305

Wow. I asked for sources and you delivered... And then some

I appreciate your detailed, well cited response. My argument has clearly collapsed. AI can create meaningful art and music, as proved by your sources.

Idk if you heard this story or not, but recently a conversational AI from Google convinced 2 or more Google engineers that it was sentient. One of them even lost their job advocating for awareness of the AI's "sentience."

The technical folks at Google claimed the engineer was batshit crazy and was fooled by clever programming/algorithms. Spoiler alert, I agree with those folks, BUT I also believe that the Google engineer honestly believed the AI had sentience. That's as high a score as you can get on the Turing test... We have made great strides in the field of AI in the recent few decades, that's for sure.

HOWEVER, if AI is so powerful and so indistinguishable from human products, why not just use it for everything? Have it do all our work, solve all our problems, and create all the art/music/literature? Because AI is not there yet, from a technical/Capability point of view. AI is good at singular tasks, like making a picture or writing a tune, but it breaks down when given broad general tasks. The human brain is complex and thinks critically. AI can't think critically. It can only make decisions based on the data it was fed and the algorithms/code that interpret that data. Although it can do incredible things, AI is still outclassed by human intelligence. Unless we make some miracle breakthroughs within the next century, I don't see this changing anytime soon.

2

paramach t1_itabruz wrote

Reply to comment by A_throwaway__acc in A.I.-Generated Art Is Already Transforming Creative Work by Gari_305

Which art contests? Source? Proofs?

Let me give you an example. Would you rather pay $1000 for a Picasso or an AI's rendition of a Picasso?

Obviously you would opt for the real Picasso right? It has real world value, not just because it's pleasant to look at, but because a HUMAN master took every bit of time and care needed to create it. He pours his SOUL into his creation. That's what we as humans value. That's why the Picasso is worth millions while the AI creations are worthless.

−1

paramach t1_it8o6kq wrote

Reply to comment by Slothsucks in A.I.-Generated Art Is Already Transforming Creative Work by Gari_305

As someone who is in the IT industry, AI is not nearly at the level of sophistication that humans have regarding art. AI algorithms are clumsy and random, spewing out grotesque products. Even if an AI managed to paint something beautiful or awe inspiring, it's still pointless because it was made by a machine. Real Art can only come from the human soul as a reflection of the human experience.

−5