every single time the AI argument comes down to this. "oh you just don't trust AI cos youre a rube who believes in a soul" no motherfucker I'm just not some fucking anti-intellectual who has decided, apropros of NO research into neuroscience, that I know how the brain works and it MUST be analogous to something algorithm based machines can understand

you genuinely don't know what you're talking about, and you have to take so many intellectual shortcuts to derive your position that you are not worth taking seriously

[–] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Who are you arguing against? I never said AI was analogous to a human brain. It’s plainly not.

[–] yoink@hexbear.net 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

here?

Unfortunately I think that’s a bit of a liberal argument. It ascribes some ineffable quality to human creativity that AI cannot replicate.

unless my lying eyes deceive me

[–] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago

When I say replicate I mean replicate an output. I.e. AI can be used to create images that are unique but categorically indistinguishable from various types of digital images that we would classify as art. I did not mean to imply that the AI models which currently exist can replicate processes that occur in the human mind.

I understand why there might be some confusion and I’m sorry if I wasn’t more clear. I genuinely dislike calling these models “neural nets” or “AI” because that implies they function as a human mind would. Anyone who understands the basics of both should know that’s not at all true.

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

every single time the AI argument comes down to this. "oh you just don't trust AI cos youre a rube who believes in a soul" no motherfucker I'm just not some fucking anti-intellectual who has decided, apropros of NO research into neuroscience, that I know how the brain works and it MUST be analogous to something algorithm based machines can understand

you genuinely don't know what you're talking about, and you have to take so many intellectual shortcuts to derive your position that you are not worth taking seriously

As I said elsewhere, the "human intelligence is just a sufficient number of TI-88 calculators bolted together, actually" type of bazinga arguments (as often proclaimed by occult-tier techbros like "FrightfulHobgoblin") may exist in part to belittle actual artists for the sake of boosting the treat printers (or the treat printer prompters) to artist status.

[–] yoink@hexbear.net 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

exist in part to belittle actual artists for the sake of boosting the treat printers (or the treat printer prompters) to artist status

that's what's so insane to me. for the longest time, STEM folk were all about 'artists aren't worth respecting' 'oh arts degree? just put the fries in the bag lmao'

then suddenly AI art comes about and then it's 'look at my art! AI makes better art than anyone and it's imperative we dump everything into it! you must respect my AI art! you must treat me like an artiste'

and now that it's clear it's a grift, it's 'art is dead, we will never beat AI, artists are back to not worth respecting'

once again, tourists visiting every creative medium they can to try and find fresh rubes for their machine

[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

then suddenly AI art comes about and then it's 'look at my art! AI makes better art than anyone and it's imperative we dump everything into it! you must respect my AI art! you must treat me like an artiste'

I've seen that shit here too. Today.

I think the ideological core of it is the boosters want cheap treats, or even want to feel like artists as "prompt engineers," and refuse to even acknowledge the costs and consequences and would rather shit on working-class artists, writers, and other imperiled people that are supposed to be comrades. No leftist I can respect goes there.