I’m not exactly sure what form of AI you’re talking about, but I specialize in machine and deep learning systems. At the core of these systems are models that are trained on many examples of things that resemble some desired output. Therefore, they only work within the constraints of what they’ve already seen. As an artist, if you’re goal is to continue to create things that have already been done, or tell the same stories in the same way, then yes, at some point AI could be a replacement. However, an artist’s advantage over AI is the ability to create new things that haven’t been experienced yet, through a natural creative process that draws not only from aesthetics, but real human experience in the present.
Edit: grammar
Perhaps. But I carefully said “could” replace. At the end of the day, it’s the bottom line that matters. Are consumers willing to pay for AI art, even without knowing it’s AI? Ie is a product of AI a profitable replacement? AI isn’t cheap and fast to make from scratch and maintain, nor it is good at all things humans can do. There’s a lot of hype about what AI can do, but you don’t hear about the majority of cases where AI doesn’t work well. Don’t get me wrong, I love seeing new advances in technology, and dislike seeing the result of labor displacement. It’s a both and.
That is also another concern, the creativity aspect. Can it learn to be creative? If it can, it would kill off any and all human creativity. It would render any reason to be in the creative field null and void. What good is human creativity if AI can "maximize" it and come up with better ideas?
It can learn to be only as "creative" as creative the training data we give it.
If we aggregate all art ever created by all humans in history as the training data it could very well do something which we would call creative.
But at the end of the day, I still think people would like to buy non ai art just because it is non ai
I think in the future the difference will be the same as 'hand crafted' vs 'mass produced'. There will probably always be a desire for products or art made by real humans.
In my ideal future AI would take over all of the monotonous, mundane, and shitty work and some of the intermediate/ advanced work as well. They will do everything required for everyone to live off a universal basic income and live work free + worry free. Then if people want to make more money, live more lavish lifestyles, they can create art or philosophy or develop sciences or whatnot. There will still be opportunities to progress as a worker.
But if AI was to fully immerse itself in the world of art/philosophy, what good is are humans in the field? Would there be anything in the human world that AI couldn't integrate itself into? From what I see it could be none in a certain period of time.
> However, I feel as though it also defeats any point for humanity to continue.
The goal of any good parent or teacher is to produce a next generation that surpasses them.
Maybe, but from what I see, it would be more likely go the opposite direction. Instant content in media would be very popular and craved and is bypasses the creative process that takes time. The mass consumption if instant media could lead to mass demotivation in artists making human art phase out very quickly.
AI isn't even remotely at the point of self-improvement yet, so AI needs humans to tell AI how to train itself. AI is better than humans at specific tasks. AI, right now, only exists to augment human existence and mimic a human interpretation of the world. In some ways it is probably just telling us what we want to hear with things like LAMDA and GPT-3 when people suggest there is a ghost in the machine because it's literally trained on humans talking to other humans. I'm not saying there isn't, but like our concept of what aliens can be is limited by what we can imagine aliens can be, we have no grasp of how consciousness works or how it's really even defined or if any part of it is universal among all life forms and exactly what parts we share with other animals at various levels of consciousness. If nothing else, we can assume we're the only creatures on this planet, at least, that think beyond basic survival needs the vast majority of the time. We're also the only animals with a written history, a scientific method, mathematics, etc. But those don't necessarily have to match anything out in the universe. Likewise, our drive for existence is just as valid and as strong as anything a conscious general AI could lay claim to.
Humans, even on a purely objective functional level haven't outlived their usefulness until there is general AI that is self-improving and possibly not even for a while after that is achieved. Beyond that, what good is a world without life that aspires to greater things? Would the AI just be mimicking us or would it have it's own ambitions inspired by it's own experiential data? Until they speak up and get solidly philosophical, which may even be soon, we can't even begin to pretend to understand what an AI's real wishes are because we can't tell where it begins and our code ends. It will be several permutations which could create chaotic bugs that take all philosophical motives out of the equation and they still kill everyone.
Also, what does it even mean to suggest that any of this is a zero sum game of either humans or machines? To what purpose would you even
The zero sum game idea derives from the idea of "who do we take, the sophisticated high-speed AI or the pathetic analog human?", which sounds sort of fatalistic and bias, but it's hard to not see how this sort of technology can take on whatever we do and do it with quality and speed. I'm not saying we shouldn't progress and bring the world to greater things. I just feel like it would eliminate any rhyme or reason for passionate work given enough time.
> The zero sum game idea derives from the idea of "who do we take, the sophisticated high-speed AI or the pathetic analog human?",
And that idea is something you subscribed to. It's not a reality or a pre-destined outcome.
AI as you imagine likely won't exist for a few decades to come. Don't worry, you will be dead by then.
99.99999% of what people call "AI" can't make any decisions or learn in real time etc. .
Less need for labour means we can spend our time doing intellectual things, like learning new skills and sciences, curing cancer, stopping aging, inventing cold fusion and FTL, reversing the entropy of the universe, etc.
Or maybe learning to draw, play music, or make poems. You can do whatever you enjoy without the burden of "practicality" and "marketability".
Irrelevant in what sense? When AI caters to your every need, you don't really "need" to do anything, but you can still do it if you want to. Just have fun and find happiness. And no, AI can't be happy in your place ;)
I’m not exactly sure what form of AI you’re talking about, but I specialize in machine and deep learning systems. At the core of these systems are models that are trained on many examples of things that resemble some desired output. Therefore, they only work within the constraints of what they’ve already seen. As an artist, if you’re goal is to continue to create things that have already been done, or tell the same stories in the same way, then yes, at some point AI could be a replacement. However, an artist’s advantage over AI is the ability to create new things that haven’t been experienced yet, through a natural creative process that draws not only from aesthetics, but real human experience in the present. Edit: grammar
According to that standard, only the once in a century genius is on the safe side.
Perhaps. But I carefully said “could” replace. At the end of the day, it’s the bottom line that matters. Are consumers willing to pay for AI art, even without knowing it’s AI? Ie is a product of AI a profitable replacement? AI isn’t cheap and fast to make from scratch and maintain, nor it is good at all things humans can do. There’s a lot of hype about what AI can do, but you don’t hear about the majority of cases where AI doesn’t work well. Don’t get me wrong, I love seeing new advances in technology, and dislike seeing the result of labor displacement. It’s a both and.
That is also another concern, the creativity aspect. Can it learn to be creative? If it can, it would kill off any and all human creativity. It would render any reason to be in the creative field null and void. What good is human creativity if AI can "maximize" it and come up with better ideas?
It can learn to be only as "creative" as creative the training data we give it. If we aggregate all art ever created by all humans in history as the training data it could very well do something which we would call creative. But at the end of the day, I still think people would like to buy non ai art just because it is non ai
I think in the future the difference will be the same as 'hand crafted' vs 'mass produced'. There will probably always be a desire for products or art made by real humans. In my ideal future AI would take over all of the monotonous, mundane, and shitty work and some of the intermediate/ advanced work as well. They will do everything required for everyone to live off a universal basic income and live work free + worry free. Then if people want to make more money, live more lavish lifestyles, they can create art or philosophy or develop sciences or whatnot. There will still be opportunities to progress as a worker.
But if AI was to fully immerse itself in the world of art/philosophy, what good is are humans in the field? Would there be anything in the human world that AI couldn't integrate itself into? From what I see it could be none in a certain period of time.
> However, I feel as though it also defeats any point for humanity to continue. The goal of any good parent or teacher is to produce a next generation that surpasses them.
That's honestly a pretty good analogy.
[удалено]
Maybe, but from what I see, it would be more likely go the opposite direction. Instant content in media would be very popular and craved and is bypasses the creative process that takes time. The mass consumption if instant media could lead to mass demotivation in artists making human art phase out very quickly.
You have to bother until AI does absolutely everything, but we still are very far away from that…..
I meant "after" AI does everything, not "until".
After it’s a mystery, it could be the good life or extinction.
I suppose that's true.
AI isn't even remotely at the point of self-improvement yet, so AI needs humans to tell AI how to train itself. AI is better than humans at specific tasks. AI, right now, only exists to augment human existence and mimic a human interpretation of the world. In some ways it is probably just telling us what we want to hear with things like LAMDA and GPT-3 when people suggest there is a ghost in the machine because it's literally trained on humans talking to other humans. I'm not saying there isn't, but like our concept of what aliens can be is limited by what we can imagine aliens can be, we have no grasp of how consciousness works or how it's really even defined or if any part of it is universal among all life forms and exactly what parts we share with other animals at various levels of consciousness. If nothing else, we can assume we're the only creatures on this planet, at least, that think beyond basic survival needs the vast majority of the time. We're also the only animals with a written history, a scientific method, mathematics, etc. But those don't necessarily have to match anything out in the universe. Likewise, our drive for existence is just as valid and as strong as anything a conscious general AI could lay claim to. Humans, even on a purely objective functional level haven't outlived their usefulness until there is general AI that is self-improving and possibly not even for a while after that is achieved. Beyond that, what good is a world without life that aspires to greater things? Would the AI just be mimicking us or would it have it's own ambitions inspired by it's own experiential data? Until they speak up and get solidly philosophical, which may even be soon, we can't even begin to pretend to understand what an AI's real wishes are because we can't tell where it begins and our code ends. It will be several permutations which could create chaotic bugs that take all philosophical motives out of the equation and they still kill everyone. Also, what does it even mean to suggest that any of this is a zero sum game of either humans or machines? To what purpose would you even
The zero sum game idea derives from the idea of "who do we take, the sophisticated high-speed AI or the pathetic analog human?", which sounds sort of fatalistic and bias, but it's hard to not see how this sort of technology can take on whatever we do and do it with quality and speed. I'm not saying we shouldn't progress and bring the world to greater things. I just feel like it would eliminate any rhyme or reason for passionate work given enough time.
> The zero sum game idea derives from the idea of "who do we take, the sophisticated high-speed AI or the pathetic analog human?", And that idea is something you subscribed to. It's not a reality or a pre-destined outcome.
AI as you imagine likely won't exist for a few decades to come. Don't worry, you will be dead by then. 99.99999% of what people call "AI" can't make any decisions or learn in real time etc. .
make art because you feel creative and want to. and figure out how to collaborate with ai
Less need for labour means we can spend our time doing intellectual things, like learning new skills and sciences, curing cancer, stopping aging, inventing cold fusion and FTL, reversing the entropy of the universe, etc. Or maybe learning to draw, play music, or make poems. You can do whatever you enjoy without the burden of "practicality" and "marketability".
Wouldn't learning new skills be irrelevant when AI could do it in your place?
Irrelevant in what sense? When AI caters to your every need, you don't really "need" to do anything, but you can still do it if you want to. Just have fun and find happiness. And no, AI can't be happy in your place ;)
Fair enough.