Well-planned algorithmic randomness and Ai are not the same things.
I would really love to know how they’re different.
I don’t particularly subscribe to separation of art and artist, except for things like “authorial intent doesn’t matter for discussion of a message or meaning you took from the work”, but that’s not what you meant.
I will, however, separate the artist from their tool. I do not condemn paintbrushes for being used to paint offensive words, nor do I think they’re unethical just because Hitler used them. The art is an extension of the artist, not their tool.
You do not give money to people who are using hammers to kill puppies. The only problem with owning a hammer is the people who think that by doing so you must support the puppy killers.
A tool cannot be malicious. It is a thing and has no volition.
A tool that’s doing harm can and should be regulated, and the harm and potential for harm mitigated, but it cannot be malicious anymore than a lawn dart or a kinder egg.
“There’s a very good reason why you’re wrong, several even, but I simply don’t have the space to explain them” is so eye rolling that I’m actually physically trying to find where they landed.
Given you won’t explain your thoughts, other than to say that AI is different from algorithmic randomness (which it isn’t: it’s literally a machine for shaping randomness according to learned weights and biases), I’m just going to assume you don’t really know what you’re talking about.
Charitably, you’re angry at how models were trained without consultation by the people involved, and how it’s now being used to threaten the livelihoods of the same people.
That’s totally correct in my book. Openai, anthropic and the whole lot of them can burn as far as I’m concerned.
The tool in no way requires its inputs to be hostile.
You don’t “support” a tool. I’m not in the pro-nailgun camp, or team anti-hydraulic jack.
I am pro-“how can you fathom the cognitive dissonance to argue that you support art and artists while simultaneously having the gall to declare yourself an authority on what can or cannot be real art. Shut up and make something. You still won’t be able to justify the opinion but then at least you’ll have contributed something worthwhile instead of flailing about how other people are damaging something you’ve been passively enjoying as is”.
Sorry. Didn’t mean to match your tone. That was rude of me.
I would really love to know how they’re different.
I don’t particularly subscribe to separation of art and artist, except for things like “authorial intent doesn’t matter for discussion of a message or meaning you took from the work”, but that’s not what you meant.
I will, however, separate the artist from their tool. I do not condemn paintbrushes for being used to paint offensive words, nor do I think they’re unethical just because Hitler used them. The art is an extension of the artist, not their tool.
You do not give money to people who are using hammers to kill puppies. The only problem with owning a hammer is the people who think that by doing so you must support the puppy killers.
A tool cannot be malicious. It is a thing and has no volition.
A tool that’s doing harm can and should be regulated, and the harm and potential for harm mitigated, but it cannot be malicious anymore than a lawn dart or a kinder egg.
“There’s a very good reason why you’re wrong, several even, but I simply don’t have the space to explain them” is so eye rolling that I’m actually physically trying to find where they landed.
Given you won’t explain your thoughts, other than to say that AI is different from algorithmic randomness (which it isn’t: it’s literally a machine for shaping randomness according to learned weights and biases), I’m just going to assume you don’t really know what you’re talking about.
Charitably, you’re angry at how models were trained without consultation by the people involved, and how it’s now being used to threaten the livelihoods of the same people.
That’s totally correct in my book. Openai, anthropic and the whole lot of them can burn as far as I’m concerned.
The tool in no way requires its inputs to be hostile.
You don’t “support” a tool. I’m not in the pro-nailgun camp, or team anti-hydraulic jack.
I am pro-“how can you fathom the cognitive dissonance to argue that you support art and artists while simultaneously having the gall to declare yourself an authority on what can or cannot be real art. Shut up and make something. You still won’t be able to justify the opinion but then at least you’ll have contributed something worthwhile instead of flailing about how other people are damaging something you’ve been passively enjoying as is”.
Sorry. Didn’t mean to match your tone. That was rude of me.