Anthony on Nostr: The Conversation U.S. Oh no, you're getting into "Fresh AI Hell" territory with this ...
The Conversation U.S. (npub1a6w…9e8h) Oh no, you're getting into "Fresh AI Hell" territory with this one. The author of this article, and the published article they cite (The originality of machines: AI takes the Torrance Test), are in business studies, not computer science or AI, nor in psychology, sociology, or any other field relevant to the assessment of human creativity. They don't really have scholarly standing to be discussing either AI or human creativity writ large, and definitely not any overlap there may be.
The statement about AI "winning awards" is to a NYT article that both-sides the argument rather than taking the assessment of actual artists, which is that image generators cannot make art and are essentially stealing artworks from artists.
"Tools like DALL-E and Midjourney are actually more creative than most humans" is an obscene thing to say, frankly. Besides the fact that you're failing to read the room after the Writers Guild and Screen Actors Guild strikes specifically called attention to the use of these tools to deskill and replace workers, this statement is 100% AI hype and does not hold up to even a moment's scrutiny. These are tools based on storing the statistics of very large databases of images and then emitting ("extruding") image-like output from prompts. They are input-output systems, essentially puppets of their human users whose actions are choreographed by the human artists who created the works that make them possible. They are incapable of being "creative" in any meaningful sense of that word: they literally lack the capacity to "be" that, or anything else cognitive for that matter. Equating what they do with what humans do, as your toot does, is absolutely shocking.
I'm very disappointed that you published this. Boo.
cc: Prof. Emily M. Bender(she/her) (npub1z0k…pp3u) Alex Hanna (npub1h4c…c4eg)
#AI #hype
The statement about AI "winning awards" is to a NYT article that both-sides the argument rather than taking the assessment of actual artists, which is that image generators cannot make art and are essentially stealing artworks from artists.
"Tools like DALL-E and Midjourney are actually more creative than most humans" is an obscene thing to say, frankly. Besides the fact that you're failing to read the room after the Writers Guild and Screen Actors Guild strikes specifically called attention to the use of these tools to deskill and replace workers, this statement is 100% AI hype and does not hold up to even a moment's scrutiny. These are tools based on storing the statistics of very large databases of images and then emitting ("extruding") image-like output from prompts. They are input-output systems, essentially puppets of their human users whose actions are choreographed by the human artists who created the works that make them possible. They are incapable of being "creative" in any meaningful sense of that word: they literally lack the capacity to "be" that, or anything else cognitive for that matter. Equating what they do with what humans do, as your toot does, is absolutely shocking.
I'm very disappointed that you published this. Boo.
cc: Prof. Emily M. Bender(she/her) (npub1z0k…pp3u) Alex Hanna (npub1h4c…c4eg)
#AI #hype