← Back to context

Comment by qsera

5 days ago

The difference is whether an entity that can "feel" is in the loop and how much they have contributed to it even if it is a remix.

17 comments

qsera

Reply
timschmidt  5 days ago

I think there's demonstrably very little difference at all between human and AI outputs, and that's exactly what freaks people out about it. Else they wouldn't be so obsessed with trying to find and define what makes it different.

The Thesis of Everything is a Remix is that there is no difference in how any culture is produced. Different models will have a different flavor to their output in the same way as different people contribute their own experiences to a work.

  • datsci_est_2015  5 days ago

    > I think there's demonstrably very little difference at all between human and AI outputs

    Bold claim, as the internet is awash with counterexamples.

    In any case, as I think this conversation is trending towards theories of artistic expression, “AI content” will never be truly relatable until it can feel pleasure, pain, and other human urges. The first thing I often think about when I critically assess a piece of art, like music, is what the artist must have been feeling when they created it, and what prompted them to feel that way. I often wonder if AI influencers have ever critically assessed art, or if they actually don’t understand it because of a lack of empathy or something.

    And relatability, for me, is the ultimate value of artistic expression.

    • senordevnyc  5 days ago

      In any case, as I think this conversation is trending towards theories of artistic expression, “AI content” will never be truly relatable until it can feel pleasure, pain, and other human urges. The first thing I often think about when I critically assess a piece of art, like music, is what the artist must have been feeling when they created it, and what prompted them to feel that way.

      I recently watched "Come See Me in the Good Light", about the life and death of poet Andrea Gibson. I find their poetry very moving, precisely because it's dripping with human emotion.

      Or at least, that's the story I tell myself. The reality is that I perceive it to be written by a human full of emotion. If I were to find out it was AI, I would immediately lose interest, but I think we're already at the point where AI output is indistinguishable from human output in many cases, and if I perceive art to be imbued with human emotion, the actuality of it only matters in terms of how it shapes my perception of it.

      I'm not really sure where we'll go with that from here. Maybe art will remain human-created only, and we'll demand some kind of proof of its provenance of being borne of a human mind and a human heart. Or maybe younger generations will really care only about how art makes them feel, not what kind of intelligent entity made it. I really don't know.

    • timschmidt  5 days ago

      > Bold claim, as the internet is awash with counterexamples.

      What do you consider a counterexample? Because I've been involved in local politics lately, and can say from experience that any foundation model is capable of more rational and detailed thought, and more creative expression, than most of the beloved members of my community.

      If you're comparing AI to the pinnacle of human achievement, as another commenter pointed to Shakespeare, then I think the argument is already won in favor of AI.

      8 replies →

  • qsera  5 days ago

    > demonstrably very little difference at all between human and AI outputs

    Is there "demonstrably" a lot of difference between Shakespeare and an HN comment?

    The point is exactly that there is no such difference. And that it enables slop to be sold as art. And that exactly is the danger. But another point is we had the even before LLMs. And LLMs just make it more explicit and makes it possible at scale.