pull down to refresh
121 sats \ 6 replies \ @Scoresby 4 Aug \ on: 1,333,337 Sats Withheld in Controversial Writing Competition BooksAndArticles
There may have been a world where having grok judge the contest was fun and interesting, even if grok was nothing more than a stand-in for "random" with some excuses glued on to it in tasteful places. At least it might have provided some uncertainty and tension to contest.
But that becomes an exercise in whether or not grok is a good alarm clock. And probably it is not as interesting as a competition that has a human judge.
While I do agree with this, I'm curious on what basis the statement is made. Do you believe this comes down to a fundamental difference between humans and machines or is it a function of degree (machines aren't there yet...)?
Thanks for your comments.
My basis for the statement is that the value of art is subjective.
It cannot be attributed value based on data because the data doesn't exist. Maybe if AI was told a new Picasso had been unearthed, it would value it in the millions, but what about which Picasso is the best? It has to go on data provided by humans (the most expensive sale or the most revered piece in a major museum).
Finally, if humans know that art was created by a machine (with no experience, history, or toil) we value it very low.
Why are we attempting to destroy the value we create? Why are we keen to give up the pursuit of experts attributing value to art?
It will take us all time to adapt to the changes AI brings, but we should use it for tasks we don't value, not ones we do.
reply
Perfect, faultless. Except for the following:
use it for tasks we don't value, not ones we do.
Even in these activities, attention and human work are needed, otherwise the criteria for everything, including what art is, become contaminated by an opinion about something that people think is the supreme of human creation, and if it is, there's nothing wrong with that.
reply
Thanks for sharing that.
Yes, I suppose you could say use it for time-intensive tasks which don't provide us as much meaning.
As we know, humans have a great ability to take labour saving technology for granted, and labour provides us with a lot of drive and meaning.
reply
I take this to mean you do not believe a machine can like something.
But humans, too, must go on data provided by other humans. I've often been off-put by a certain form of art or type of food, only to develop an appreciation for it when guided by someone who has spent time on it. Our culture, at times, feels like one large machine by which we teach (or brainwash) ourselves with what is valuable...except for when we just like something. In those cases, whether others may call it art or not, we, in the secret chambers of our hearts, feel something because we just happen to like it -- not always knowing why.
Liking a thing, seems to me, to be the core of what makes it art. And thus far, I don't think I believe AI can like a thing. although, if I introspect what liking actually is very deeply, I find a boggy surface upon which I tread with unsure footing.
If we could discover that machines liked something, then, perhaps we still wouldn't want them to judge our art because they simply wouldn't get it. In the same way that sometimes humans don't get the art from cultures that are foreign to them.
reply
Yes, I suppose you have a good point. On examination, I do feel like I'm protecting human interests and trying to exclude machines from the posibikity of sentience.
Yet, what's the point in our existence if machine can extract the meaning?
Thanks for the mega zap!
It will be reinvested into the territory (with no reneging)