• snooggums@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I am saying AI won’t have biological living experiences, only abstract concepts of biological living experiences that are fed into it.

    You are reading way more into my point than my actual point. Another way of saying it is that we can try to understand a dog and explain why dogs do what they do, but we are not actual dogs and cannot use the actual experience of being a dog when creating art. Or how someone will never know the exact experience of someone of a other race even though they can understand the concepts of differences. Experience is different than understanding an abstract.

    • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Firstly, @[email protected] = @[email protected] ? I was responding to the latter, so when you say I am saying (implicit format, to clarify, when I said X, I was [meaning to say] Y. ) I don’t know which part of what reply fulfills X, unless you just mean to be emphatic. (e.g. He’s mad! Mad, I tell you! ) So my thread context is lost.

      Secondly the AI’s lack of human experience seems irrelevant. Human artists commonly guess at what dogs think / feel, what it is to be a racial minority, another sex or whatever it is to not be themselves. And we’re not great at it. AI, guessing at what it is to be human doesn’t have a high bar to overcome. We depend on abstracts and third-party information all the time to create empathizable characters.

      For that matter, among those empathizable characters, synthetic beings are included. The whole point of Blade Runner 2049 is that everyone, synthetic or otherwise, is valid, is deserving of personhood.

      Again, you can say by fiat an AI has the personhood of a toaster, but that doesn’t make the content it creates less quality or less real. And given in the past how often we’ve disparaged art for being made by women, by non-whites, by Jews, we as a social collective have demonstrated our opinion is easily biased to arbitrarily favor those sources we like.

      You’re not going to find any way to objectively justify including only human beings as qualified to make art.

      • snooggums@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, I am not saying that only humans can make art. I think a lot of other animals are fully capable of making art, even if we frequently call it instinct. Hell, bird mating rituals are better displays of physical dancing than humans in a lot of cases!

        I am saying what we currently call AI, which is just mismashing existing art and not creating anything new or with any kind of complex emotions, will make technical art that has no depth or background that is commonly associated with art.