irmoz

Both the astronaut and horse are plagiarised from different sources, it's definitely "seen" both before

I don't make a habit of answering irrelevant red herrings.

I'm really struggling to believe that you actually think this.

I couldn’t have put it better myself. You’ve said lots of philosophical words without actually addressing any of my questions:

Did you really just pull an "I know you are, but what am I?"

I'm not gonna entertain your attempt to pretend very concrete concepts are woollier and more complex than they are.

If you truly believe machine learning has even begun to approach being compared to human cognition, there is no speaking to you about this subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUrOxh_0leE&pp=ygUQYWkgZG9lc24ndCBleGlzdA%3D%3D

Every step of the way, a machine learning model is only making guesses based on previous training data. And not what the data actually is, but the pieces of it. Do green pixels normally go here? Does the letter "k" go here?

Philosophical masturbation, based on a poor understanding of what is an already solved issue.

We know for a fact that a machine learning model does not even know what a rosebush is. It only knows the colours of pixels that usually go into a photo of one. And even then, it doesn't even know the colours - only the bit values that correspond to them.

That is it.

Opinions and beauty are not vague, and nor are free will and trying, especially in this context. You only wish them to be for your argument.

An opinion is a value judgment. AIs don't have values, and we have to deliberately restrict them to stop actual chaos happening.

Beauty is, for our purposes, something that the individual finds worthy of viewing and creating. Only people can find things beautiful. Machine learning algrorithms are only databases with complex retrieval systems.

Free will is also quite obvious in context: being able to do something of your own volition. AIs need exact instructions to get anything done. They can't make decisions beyond what you tell them to do.

Trying? I didn't even define this as human specific

A person painting a rose bush draws upon far more than just a collection of rose bushes in their memory. There's nothing vague about it, I just didn't feel like getting into much detail, as I thought that statement might jog your memory of a common understanding we all have about art. I suppose that was too much to ask.

For starters, refer to my statement "a person understands why a rose bush is beatiful". I admit that maybe this is vague, but let's unpack.

Beaty is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. It is a subjective thing, requiring opinion, and AIs cannot hold opinions. I find rose bushes beautiful due to the inherent contrast between the delicate nature of the rose buds, and the almost monstrous nature of the fronds.

So, if I were to draw a rose bush, I would emphasise these aspects, out of my own free will. I might even draw it in a way that resembles a monster. I might even try to tell a story with the drawing, one about a rose bush growing tired of being pkucked, and taking revenge on the humans who dare to steal its buds.

All this, from the prompt "draw a rose bush".

What would an AI draw?

Just a rose bush.

Nope, human plagiarism is still plagiarism

Not even remotely the same. A producer still has to choose what to sample, and what to do with it.

An AI is just a black box with a "create" button.

A person sees a piece of art and is inspired. They understand what they see, be it a rose bush to paint or a story beat to work on. This inspiration leads to actual decisions being made with a conscious aim to create art.

An AI, on the other hand, sees a rose bush and adds it to its rose bush catalog, reads a story beat and adds to to its story database. These databases are then shuffled and things are picked out, with no mind involved whatsoever.

A person knows why a rose bush is beautiful, and internalises that thought to create art. They know why a story beat is moving, and can draw out emotional connections. An AI can't do either of these.

The creative process necessarily involves abandoning bad ideas and refining to something more intentional

"It's not on the left nor the top" implies you were expecting to find something in the top left. Nowhere are you told to look in the top left.

That's exactly what you said. How did i misread?

Why won't you just answer? You're the one dragging this out