prototype_g2
Amazing song. Thanks for sharing.
I don't know if this counts as valid for this community.
Not if you are part of the AI-bros club. There is a reason Marketing agencies insist in using the term Artificial Intelligence.
Unfortunately, this is not common knowledge, as experts and Marketing Agencies explain Machine Learning to the masses by saying that "It looks at the data and learns from it, like a human would", which combined with the name Artificial Intelligence and the other terms, like Neural Networks and Machine Learning can make someone think these things are actually intelligent.
Furthermore, we, humans, can see humanity where there is none. We can see faces where there are no faces, we can empathize with things that aren't even alive. So, when this thing shows up, which is capable of creating somewhat coherent text, people are quick to Anthropomorphize the machine. To add to this, we are also very language focused: If someone is really good with the language they speak, they are usually seen as more intelligent.
And finally, never underestimate tech illiteracy.
That is true. Take, for example, movies. Cinema studious with big budgets are usually very risk averse, simply due to the cost of failure being so high. So they have to make sure they can turn a profit. But how can you make sure any given thing will be profitable? Well, that is a prediction, and to predict anything, you need data to base that prediction on. Predictions are based on past events. And so they make sequel after sequel. They make things that have been proven to work. New things, by virtue of being new, don't have tons of data (past examples) for them to make good predictions and so they avoid new things. This results in the homogenization of art. Homogenization induced by Capital, has Capital only sees value in profit, and thus, for Capital, only predictably profitable art is given the resources to flourish.
Machine Learning made images art the epiphany of this. All output is based on previous input. The machine is constructed to not deviate too much from the training data (loss function). And thus struggles to do things it does not have much data on, like original ideas.
I think that what we’re likely to see are parallel worlds of art. The first and biggest being the homogenous, public and commercial one which we’re seeing now but with more of it produced by machines, and the other a more intimate, private and personal one that we discover by tuning back into our real lives and recognising art that has been made by others who are doing the same.
That's kind of already a thing. Just without the AI. Like in the example above, Capital wants predictable profit. Therefore only the most widely appealing, proven to be profitable art will get significant budgets. Creative and unique ideas are just too risky, and therefore delegated to the indie space, where, should any ever become successful, Capital is willing to help... Under the condition they get all the money (Think, for example, how Spotify takes most of the revenue made by the songs they distribute).
By "Capital" I mean those who own things necessary to produce value.
You have yet to refute the deduction based argument:
If you use the machine to think for you, you will stop thinking.
Not thinking leads to a degradation of thinking skills
Therefore, using machine to think for you will lead to a degradation of thinking skills.
This is not inductive reasoning, like a study, where you look at data and induce a conclusion. This is pure reasoning. Refute it.
That’s a lot of bon-scientific blogs to talk about the non-scientific study I pointed out. Still no objective evidence.
They are a bunch of blogs of people sharing that, after utilizing AI for extended periods of time, their ability to solve problems degraded because they stopped thinking and sharpening their cognitive skills.
So what would satisfy your need for objective evidence? What would I need to show you for you to change your mind? How would a satisfactory study be conducted?
I didn’t say much about the “hominem” but I think you’re defining Microsoft?
"Defining Microsoft"... I didn't define Microsoft?
Did you mean "Defend"? What do you mean "defend"? Again, ad hominem. Instead of substantiating why it is you say the document doesn't count, you attack the ones who made it.
All your dismissals and you have yet to refute the argument all these people make:
If you use the machine to think for you, you will stop thinking.
Not thinking leads to a degradation of thinking skills
Therefore, using machine to think for you will lead to a degradation of thinking skills.
All you have to do is refute this argument and my then it will be up to me to defend myself. Refute the argument. It's deductive reasoning.
The classic Ad Hominem. Instead of actually refuting the arguments, you instead attack the ones making them.
So, tell me, which part of "As Bainbridge [7] noted, a key irony of automation is that by mechanising routine tasks and leaving exception-handling to the human user, you deprive the user of the routine opportunities to practice their judgement and strengthen their cognitive musculature, leaving them atrophied and unprepared when the exceptions do arise.” is affected by the conflict of interests with the company? This is a note made by Bainbridge. The argument is as follows
If you use the machine to think for you, you will stop thinking.
Not thinking leads to a degradation of thinking skills
Therefore, using machine to think for you will lead to a degradation of thinking skills.
It is not too hard to see that if you stop doing something for a while, your skill to do that thing will degrade overtime. Part of getting better is learning from your own mistakes. The AI will rob you those learning experiences.
What is the problem with the second quote? It is not an opinion, it is an observation.
Other's have noticed this already:
https://www.darrenhorrocks.co.uk/why-copilot-making-programmers-worse-at-programming/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DdEoJVZpqA
https://nmn.gl/blog/ai-illiterate-programmers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQNyYx2fZXw
This, of course, only happens if you use the AI to think for you.
Microsoft did a study on this and they found that those who made heavy usage of AI tools said they felt dumber:
"Such consternation is not unfounded. Used improperly, technologies can and do result in the deterioration of cognitive faculties that ought to be preserved. As Bainbridge [7] noted, a key irony of automation is that by mechanising routine tasks and leaving exception-handling to the human user, you deprive the user of the routine opportunities to practice their judgement and strengthen their cognitive musculature, leaving them atrophied and unprepared when the exceptions do arise."
Cognitive ability is like a muscle. If it is not used regularly, it will decay.
It also said it made people less creative:
"users with access to GenAI tools produce a less diverse set of outcomes for the same task, compared to those without. This tendency for convergence reflects a lack of personal, contextualised, critical and reflective judgement of AI output and thus can be interpreted as a deterioration of critical thinking."
If all it takes to be a “real artist” is drawing proficiently
I think you are miss-understanding the argument.
Pro-AI folk say that being anti-AI, as a digital artist, is hypocrisy because you also used a computer. Here it is shown that, despite not using a computer, the artist is still able to create their art, because there is more to the visual arts than the tools you have to make it. This puts rest to the idea that using digital art tools is somehow hypocritical with being against AIGen.
The argumentor is not saying that not knowing how to draw proficiently excludes being an artist. They are just saying that real artist do not need a computer program to create their arts, much like performances or installation artists you mentioned.
nor do I have the talent
And why do you think you do not have "talent"? What is that "talent" you speak of? Is it something people are born with? What is the problem with what you make, if all you care about is what people put into art?
Art is whatever people put into it
"It" what? The pronoun "it" is referring to what? Art? Without this clarification I cannot accurately make sense of anything else in your response.
Keep in mind that, while defining a term, you cannot use that term in it's own definition.
In some pokedex entries, it is mentioned that umbreons sweat poison. That is how they get their poison attacks. In SSEC (not to be confused with SSED), Dusk would sweat poison if he had a nightmare, poisoning everyone near. Hence the question of whether poison sweat was still going to be a thing in SSED.
Hope this was enough.