Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

GrayBox1313 t1_j1mnimw wrote

Reply to comment by gahidus in What will cheap available AI-generated images lead to? Video? Media? Entertainment? by Hall_Pitiful

Current AI can’t create from scratch or improvise. it can only mimic and remix..with guidance and direction. There’s a huge chasm to cross here. Getting into understanding of the human condition, emotion, feeling, inspiration, point of view Etc. Does a parrot understand the words it repeats?

On Star Trek the next generation the sentient android, data was the most advanced 23rd century AI ever, but couldn’t comprehend humor despite understanding it on an academic level. It was a running plot line. I suspect a similar struggle.

1

gahidus t1_j1mpp10 wrote

I think things are advancing more quickly than anyone expects. Also, regarding Star Trek, Data was actually built that way very much on purpose. His (older) brother Lore was perfectly capable of understanding those things, but he was evil and yada yada...

Not to go off on a tangent, but I want to live in Star Trek.

Edit. Also, even along the lines of the current AI remixing model, things can get very convincing very quickly. A parrot doesn't necessarily have to understand what it says, If what it says is still compelling to a listener, which is a separate thing.

2

Aelius27 t1_j1o5mrm wrote

You are under-estimating the degree to which humans are mimicking and remixing.

1

GrayBox1313 t1_j1o5zbj wrote

No, there the nature of art. But the difference is that humans are aware of it. They make decisions and have a point of view. Personal expression.

AI is a xerox machine with no thought process.

1

reconditedreams t1_j1ss8p6 wrote

The whole autistic AI trope is completely unrealistic, art AIs like midjourney prove that emotional expression can in principle be captured algorithmically.

I think you're overestimating the degree to which "real" sentience and "real" self awareness are necessery to emulate the function of sentience and self awareness to a sufficiently precise degree.

0

GrayBox1313 t1_j1su79d wrote

It’s necessary. A parrot doesn’t understand the words it says much like how an Ai creates art now.

It’s odd to sit here as the only sentient life forms on this planet that are capable of debating ideas and claim sentience isn’t required to do any of this.

1

reconditedreams t1_j1surwv wrote

You don't need actual sentience to emulate the functional output of sentience to a precise enough degree anymore than you need actual Windows to emulate the functional output of the Windows OS to a precise enough degree.

There's no reason in principle why the output of human sentience can't be emulated to a close enough degree to be almost indistinguishable from the real thing.

The actual hard problem of consciousness is totally irrelevant to the practical question of whether the function of consciousness can be emulated.

1

GrayBox1313 t1_j1svmoe wrote

Ed I dunno. Emulating doesn’t take thought or sentience. Creating and expressing a point of view does. Dogs, dolphins, Monkeys can’t really do this. Only humans can. So even then sentience isn’t enough.

If you believe that art is synonymous with style then that’s a fundamental conceptual issue that needs to be reunderstood. Van Gogh paintings aren’t about brush strokes and flowers. There’s way more to them.

1