They can't form an opinion or a feeling about a piece until they know how it was created? They have become the gatekeeper in their own mind. For what? To stay pure? How much shame and guilt are they carrying around?
Thank you for sharing this link with me. I agree with everything above. Which is why I’ve never tried to argue any of the other points. Whenever I’ve posted about AI Art, I have always focused on the ingestion part. I believe it is immoral. I may not have a clear legal definition for it, but that doesn’t make me wrong. I’m writing an article atm about the arguments it took to convince a software engineer friend of mine that AI Art is immoral. Would you be open to reading it when I’m done?
I'm more than happy to read your article. You don't have to agree with me, and I don't have to agree with you. That's the beautiful thing about public discourse. Thank you for your good faith engagement!
You've addressed the training data argument very clearly and well. You could say more about the other strands of argument. There's no collating a spellcheck and AI. Only one of those can do the actual writing. Yes ghostwriters exist and should be acknowledged. However, at least they are humans writing other humans' stories, which requires understanding. My biggest issue with AI writing, apart from theft of human creativity for corporate profit, is that if I understand how LLMs work sufficiently, there is no understanding. They predict the next word based on their training. If that's true how could they write an original sentence? If writing is the attempt to convey meaning how could something that does not understand or feel attempt to convey meaning or write in the same way as a human can even if it's difficult or even impossible to tell the difference?
Very interesting piece. So, a lot more than prediction and human brains work largely on prediction too. But human brains understand, or at least attempt to. Seems to me that what LLMs are doing, however sophisticated the results, can't be cognition if there is no understanding.
Think about it like this. You have a idea, you can describe it, but don’t know exactly how to articulate it. In the past you would find someone that could take your idea and articulate it for you, be it visually, in writing or verbally.
So, the question is this, is the talent in the idea or the ability to articulate that idea? What we have here is the chicken or the egg type question, because without each other neither exists.
AI is a tool used for articulation of a idea, guided by the human using it.
They can't form an opinion or a feeling about a piece until they know how it was created? They have become the gatekeeper in their own mind. For what? To stay pure? How much shame and guilt are they carrying around?
Thank you for sharing this link with me. I agree with everything above. Which is why I’ve never tried to argue any of the other points. Whenever I’ve posted about AI Art, I have always focused on the ingestion part. I believe it is immoral. I may not have a clear legal definition for it, but that doesn’t make me wrong. I’m writing an article atm about the arguments it took to convince a software engineer friend of mine that AI Art is immoral. Would you be open to reading it when I’m done?
I'm more than happy to read your article. You don't have to agree with me, and I don't have to agree with you. That's the beautiful thing about public discourse. Thank you for your good faith engagement!
You've addressed the training data argument very clearly and well. You could say more about the other strands of argument. There's no collating a spellcheck and AI. Only one of those can do the actual writing. Yes ghostwriters exist and should be acknowledged. However, at least they are humans writing other humans' stories, which requires understanding. My biggest issue with AI writing, apart from theft of human creativity for corporate profit, is that if I understand how LLMs work sufficiently, there is no understanding. They predict the next word based on their training. If that's true how could they write an original sentence? If writing is the attempt to convey meaning how could something that does not understand or feel attempt to convey meaning or write in the same way as a human can even if it's difficult or even impossible to tell the difference?
Thanks. Here’s a piece that addresses how LLMs work today that can give you more context around these questions. Predicting the next word is definitely in there, but that’s far from all: https://feralarchitecture.substack.com/p/it-just-predicts-the-next-token?r=2656dp&utm_medium=ios
Very interesting piece. So, a lot more than prediction and human brains work largely on prediction too. But human brains understand, or at least attempt to. Seems to me that what LLMs are doing, however sophisticated the results, can't be cognition if there is no understanding.
Think about it like this. You have a idea, you can describe it, but don’t know exactly how to articulate it. In the past you would find someone that could take your idea and articulate it for you, be it visually, in writing or verbally.
So, the question is this, is the talent in the idea or the ability to articulate that idea? What we have here is the chicken or the egg type question, because without each other neither exists.
AI is a tool used for articulation of a idea, guided by the human using it.
The talent is in articulating the idea. That's why many people have great ideas but few can create something great from the idea.
AI can't have talent or ideas or thoughts or feelings. What it can do is trawl through the work of humans and mix and match.