You’re comment still had AI at the center of it’s topic. Using a theoretical “so if souls exist and humans have souls, and that is the fuel behind art then how can AI create art, etc. etc.” Just as it would be fine imo for someone to take a same hypothetical from the other side of the coin.
My comment was specifically aimed at driving people away from a discuassion where the topic was simply just “Souls exist/don’t exist”
Basically, AI creates art because its scraped lots of images off the internet and ththe items in those images are indexed, so the program responds to the words you tell the program, like asking for a dog chasing a ball. Thats very simplistic, but basically AI is a computer program and thats how it works. Its more sophisticated now, but nothing is original, its just solving the problem you ask it to solve, and its only as good as the information its scraped off the internet, and we all know just how accurate that can be. I suspect Murphy’s Law will still apply when you ask it to do something really complicated.
AI cant create something that doesn’t exist…yet. True AI most definitely can.
AI today is like a baby and its parents are the internet. Their manufacturers the stern hand that tells them no. And the average people the encouraging hand that tells them “what if”.
I think the age 5 theory applies to AI.
.
So let see… to understand this, could i ask questions ?
An human have an intern electric current in him that move the body (i try to summerize some scientic research, i will be happy to provide them if needed, they are lot of them that why).
An ECG (Elctro Cardio Graph) can measure that and put it in visualty.
So the question is Where does this current come from ? and why it is infinite ?
.
If someone want to go even far in those questions. There this one : Every night when every cell body “sleep” that intern current circulate at a minimum intensity, and when the cell body "awake " that current flow again, this time more intensivly.
.
If its not random that mean there a certain order in place to make it harmonius, and beautiful ? more appeling to the eyes ?
Whats more compeling is if you try to put random in anything usually u don’t like the result, cuz
there no order, no creation, a lot of people even put those words together, " there are no life in it "
.
In the case of an AI (Automate Intelligence) engineer try to “order” “organize” those line of code to create some beauty in them. So far they are doing a poor job IMO.
To go far, can i add this to the topic, its academic ?
[video length = 12m47s]
Link = youtube…com/watch?v=dDUC-LqVrPU
it get interesting on 9m00s
@JoshiYinmith
I think this guy is probably right. Its going to end up an internet toy that can scrape an encyclopedia in 10 seconds, provided you don’t ask for anything too obscure, and provide examples smutty sex scenes for hopeful authors, but heaven help us if we want a rock solid defence in a trial where losing means our client gets executed. FWIW, its already doing the author bit very successfully, but I am not too sure how successful a legal defence would be. However that has not stopped plenty of International legal and accountancy companies from sacking half their research workers. Be careful whose financial advice you take! And don’t let it closer to a computer than “hunt the kitty” games!
To answer those questions:
I don’t take AI predictions too seriously. Speculating is fun but if history is anything to go by then humans are remarkably bad at predicting the future. Though it never stops us from trying.
No one predicted ChatGPT and the rapid rise of chat bots, many believed things like ChatGPT would arise in 10 or 20 years. Look at where we are now.
Before the Dot Com bubble burst, people believed wild things about the internet. Such as the internet would give rise to a Matrix like world. And that we’ll stop having face to face relationships, choosing instead to live in a virtual world.
Few, if any, analysts predicted Internet culture of today, with all the trolling, harassment, loneliness epidemic, memes and misinformation.
We were so hopeful about the internet. That the access of free information would create an informed public. Today, that is a naive view. People happily choose to live in their Echo Chambers and select news that confirm their own biases instead of trying to expand their knowledge.
So any prediction about AI and other tech should be taken with a grain of salt. There are still unknown unknowns of what AI could turn out to be and how future generations would use it.
Everything you discuss is a result of physical processes. Neither random, nor ordered. Cells are active or inactive because of feedback mechanisms in the body. EKGs measure electricity generated by cardiac activity - it’s no different from generating electricity via a steam turbine.
And no, just because it’s not random does not mean it’s ordered - you’re assuming a dichotomy that isn’t there. As I said, it is not random, it is not ordered, it is emergent from the state of the universe. The cause of said initial state is unknowable, but there is no evidence whatsoever (only faith on the part of various groups) that said state exists for any purpose whatsoever. You’re correct that actual randomness doesn’t exist, but you’re drawing invalid conclusions from that fact.
So again, you can’t derive souls from science.
What you said sounds really familiar to a meme I saw before:
Anons discuss AI art : r/greentext
Can you always tell if a piece has a “soul” or not? If yes, how? If no, why?
What do you use to judge if a piece has a “soul” or not? The identity of the author? The content? The quality? Something else?
What if you don’t know who the author is? What if the piece’s author is unknown or lost to time, would it have a “soul” or is it inconclusive? Would you disregard a piece forever because it is inconclusive if it has a “soul”?
Do all pieces done by humans have a “soul”, regardless of the content or quality?
Do no pieces done by AI have a “soul”, regardless of the content or quality?
Not personally a fan but I’ve seen posts about character AIs made of ROs from COG/HG works, would those explicitly be being trained on the game itself or do people manually do those? As I’m surprised I haven’t seen the authors, understandably, complaining about it if it’s the former.
Over on tumblr a lot of authors had received asks about that, these asks usually/often praising how great those AI chat-bots are.
I can’t remember a single author who would not tell the asker to rot in hell.
Ahh that explains it then, ty! Not on Tumblr
======================================================================
In the realm of science. We all try to explain those “unknow” things.
If its not random and order what can it be ?
=======================================================================
Easy, just look a it.
If exemple is needed i will give this two :
All those tend to the result that an human mind is not easly mislead. Souless creation will always be put to the side, and forgotten easly. Those soul creation tend to sick for a long time.
I said that already. The term is emergent.
The source of the initial properties of the universe is unknowable, so science doesn’t speak to that. However, once you have those properties, you can (with sufficiently-advanced observational and computing capabilities) predict what will happen. That’s not the same thing as it being ordered by a higher power. Intelligent design arguments are in fact pseudoscience - they look like science but the logic isn’t actually valid.
(As a side note, randomness does exist at the quantum-mechanical level, but that’s an entirely separate subject of discussion.)
I don’t know if this was answered before, so I just try my luck here.
What are the rules about writing the own text before letting an AI go over it for grammar and flow and then comparing the two (the original and enhanced AI one)? I am not going to use the enhanced AI text in the game directly at all, but check how it “improves” what I write to see how I myself could potentially improve the text myself and rewrite it from there. Sometimes I like how it switches a word around so that it does not sound repetitive, other times it has a more smooth flow of the text.
Is something like that allowed, or would that already count as completely AI because I let an AI go over it? It is not that I am letting AI generate anything completely new, just for clarification. I am pre-writing everything myself.
IIRC it depends on the kind of AI? There’s older analytical AIs to check grammar etc, and newer generative ones. The newer ones are the bad stuff.
Also, personal opinion, but you’re better served with good beta readers and human editors. GenAI just chisels away one’s own style and quirks.
@Wraith, in the days before AI was a thing, it was something Microsoft embedded in very early versions of Word that went over grammar and spelling and phrasing, and nearly always got it wrong.
Bret Devereaux’s comments on AI and college essays have held up pretty well:
It’s worth downloading the example Devereaux gives of a paper ChatGPT wrote on Roman military history (his own specialism) with his comments on it. I just read through it with my own son a week or two ago as part of his history studies. I’m hoping it reduces the odds of him trying to use GPT in his own papers…
For the economics of generative AI as a whole, I’m still persuaded by naysayers like Ed Zitron. A bubble doesn’t become any less a bubble because big companies are setting billions of dollars on fire to inflate it.