Are we allowed to like AI art?

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Ekco [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If we weren't burdened by ethics... tests like this could be done lol.

there is a story about one kid who got locked in a room by religious parents who were attempting to find the first human language like Tower of Babel story shit by preventing the kid from having any contact with the outside world or teaching it anything not to let a tragedy go to waste linguist and psychologists learned a lot from that case.

Actually, it's been done, and there's even a movie of it: L'Enfant sauvage (the Wild Child). (There have been other "wild children" also, but this one is the most studied.)

Some true asshole back in the late 1700's tried to kill his very young son, and left him in the woods to die. The kid didn't though: it grew up, and was later captured. People studied him while trying to "civilize" him.

This is no happy Tarzan story though: what they learned is that when you delay key milestones in human development, it's impossible to recover. Because the kid was wild for so much of his adolescence, he was basically an animal for the rest of his life.

TLDR; If you lock a kid in his room, he won't speak the universal tongue ... he'll just never speak (and never think like a human either).

[shovelquest]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sure ... but it produces mountains of crap also, which is why you need the human to decide what's interesting/creative and what's crap.

Well previously you were saying AI couldn't create anything new, yet it's being used to do exactly that.

Here is another example:

Researchers use AI-powered database to design potential cancer drug in 30 days

https://www.utoronto.ca/news/researc...r-drug-30-days

I'd say a cure for liver cancer is pretty new.

But we shouldn't use this cure, because it's "theft" right?

BTW it seems to me you are not saying anything that disagree's with anything Ive said, and to double check I asked chatgpt to try to parse this current discussion over teh last few pages:

Conclusion:
While they seem to be debating, Shovelquest and Loramin are largely in agreement on the fundamental point: AI is a powerful tool that can enhance creativity in game development, but it requires a human touch to shape and refine the output into something special. The debate is more about the extent of AI's creative capabilities and the balance between AI's role as a creative assistant versus a primary creator.

[shovelquest]

The moral of that story is that as humans, we fight.

With AI we can see that we're on the same team!

Long live R2-D2!

What AI is capable of:

[shovelquest]

This is an interesting take.

https://lithub.com/nanowrimo-defends...hole-internet/

Ableism and privilege standing in the way?

National Novel Writing Month’s general take on AI is that they don’t want to dismiss AI, because “to categorically condemn AI would be to ignore classist and ableist issues surrounding the use of the technology, and that questions around the use of AI tie to questions around privilege.” In their framing, AI allows everyone to write despite differences in financial abilities, differences in physical and mental ability, and differences in access to resources. Overall they don’t want to stand in the way of new resources that could be useful to writers, explaining that they “see value in sharing resources and information about AI and any emerging technology, issue, or discussion that is relevant to the writing community as a whole,” and adding that “it’s healthy for writers to be curious about what’s new and forthcoming, and what might impact their career space or their pursuit of the craft.”

Anyone Being able to tell their story without the privilege of being raised in a world where you have the time and education to may only enrich the creative world.

[Duik]

Originally Posted by Ciderpress [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yes pretty much this exactly. Almost zero artists invent any of the tools they use to create their art. Mozart didn't invent the 12 tone equal tempered scale, he just used it. Chuck Berry didn't invent the electric guitar, he just used it. Who cares? Do you like the output or not?

If you work in the arts for a living, I can see why it's threatening but I'd take it as any other challenge. It's always been adapt or die making money in the arts.

That is what humans do, we innovate. It has tajen many iterations (for some of us) to get good enuf to take the next step. Like the LLMs do.
What Duik! Are you mad?

I say if the LLM owners want to emulate that make a machine that can teach other machines stuff then make new stuff based on that stuff. Like humans do.
But, without the use of humans to teach it our hard earned lessons.

Make smart A.I but please dont be stupid enuf to think (after we do all the teaching) we will benefit from it (as a group) when its lessons are over. We will be screwed over. Its what the entitled wealthy and corporations do.

But continue onward with the simping for A.I. It suits the lame and under educated.

Shutup and sit down A.I and then do my washing up. Bitch.

[shovelquest]

But, without the use of humans to teach it our hard earned lessons.

The clergy said this about printing press... [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Religious leaders condemned the new books as the Devil’s work. In 1501, Pope Alexander VI even threatened to excommunicate anyone caught printing books without the church’s permission. The clergy worried what it would do for learning generally, while monk-scribes worried about their jobs.

(ofc I definitely think Dune, or Foundation's take on AI is a possible future, and maybe terminator even that is possible easily).

Right now I do like AI but I also fear what it may become. So I don't totally disagree with you either Duik, I just enjoy the debate because whatever the potential, it's great!

A.I. It suits the lame and under educated.

So, like the breakthrough we call the age of enlightenment. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Everyone has the same capacity of sensation, and, therefore, education should not be restricted to a certain class or gender. Prior to the 17th and 18th centuries, education and literacy were generally restricted to males who belonged to the nobility and the mercantile and professional classes. In England and France, “idealized notions of domesticity, which emphasized the importance of preparing girls for motherhood and home duties, fuelled the expansion of schooling for girls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educat...ent#cite_ref-4

[loramin]

Originally Posted by shovelquest [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is an interesting take.

https://lithub.com/nanowrimo-defends...hole-internet/

Ableism and privilege standing in the way?

Oh god don't start this, I already went through it on Slashdot.

Nanowrimo is not a competition: it's a "motivate yourself to write that novel you've always wanted to, by setting an arbitrary deadline (the month of November)" challenge. For someone with (say) ADHD, LLMs might make it easier for them to complete the challenge ... they're not trying to suggest that if your legs don't work, you need AI.

But really, who gives a crap about how some random stranger works on their novel in the privacy of their own home?

[shovelquest]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

For someone with (say) ADHD, LLMs might make it easier for them to complete the challenge ... they're not trying to suggest that if your legs don't work, you need AI.

So again, someone with a inherited genetic condition benefits, and we're supposed to cry foul?

But really, who gives a crap about how some random stranger works on their novel in the privacy of their own home?

eggs-actly.

[Duik]

Regarding databases interogated (using human knowledge) but iterating millions (billions?) of times in short order to cure <insert disease/ailment> is a good use of A.I.
An ADHD writer using it to keep on track? Sure, but we all know it will not stop there. Dont we?

You think that someone (who has pumped millions into it) wont question an A.I with "How can I better subjugate the masses without them being aware better than we are now?"

In before you say LLMs are not allowed certain concepts. Pfft, if you believe that there truely is no hope.
The owners who have pumped in billions of dollars will WANT THEIR FUCKING MONEY BACK.
And will do whatever it takes to get their money back.

The fact you are using chatgpt to summerize the thread is like a recursive loop that cannot be exited without human interaction.

I am sad for you, and by extension us.

[shovelquest]

Originally Posted by Duik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Regarding databases interogated (using human knowledge) but iterating millions (billions?) of times in short order to cure <insert disease/ailment> is a good use of A.I.
An ADHD writer using it to keep on track? Sure, but we all know it will not stop there. Dont we?

You think that someone (who has pumped millions into it) wont question an A.I with "How can I better subjugate the masses without them being aware better than we are now?"

I fully agree the "human" element is dangerous.

But I would imagine that to get to the stage where 1 person could in secret ask an AI to do what you suggest here, and get an actionable or productive answer... we'd have already eliminated wealth and ownership in the process of building such a powerful technological masterwork.

Im thinking droids from starwars is a more accurate depiction of AI for many many years into the future.

They can accomplish tasks, have personalities, but are just walking tools.