Your clear distinctions are worthy of highlight as the anti AI bandwagon gains momentum.
Just last night I enjoyed a spirited conversation with someone about AI. My argument being that the human brain is essentially a LLM (currently it seems advanced). In essence, all in the universe is calculate-able with enough computing power.
I appreciate that. I find that the pro-AI group is actually easier to deal with, whereas the anti-AI group often misunderstands the human brain, culture, social learning, and more. Anti-AI misses the fundamentals of who we are in their arguments, while then stretching to make legal and ethical claims that also misuse concepts.
I dislike the pro-AI lack of respect for traditions and culture, but I don't find them ignorant. In fact, they want to create something human-like like so they're willing to learn about who we are.
If you ever want a dose on anti-AI, just find any article on the subject in the NYT and then go to the attached comment section. It's like reading notes from a luddite convention!
That’s a helpful distinction that I have not considered. I wonder if these two camps will separate (and galvanize) predictably based on political affiliation.
I had not heard of your Singularity books. I just made a suggestion that my local library system purchase the two books for their collection. Usually, they approve my suggestions.
"It really doesn’t help to make accusations of plagiarism or malicious intent against a tool, and it doesn’t help to misunderstand how AI works or how humans are creative."
---
Gioia has a habit of spewing this kind of 'woe is me' and 'I hate AI' BS, which is why I unsubscribed from his substack quite a while back. The constant complaining was annoying. And of course, like too many SS writers, he would hold much of his writings behind the paywall.
Your viewpoint seems much more realistic and enlightened.
Very, very, very few people are uniquely creative. Almost everyone has been influenced by people and things in the past. If I read books on a subject, become well versed in the subject and then write my own book on the same subject, have I stolen the work of all those I learned from? I think not.
Yeah, Ted has taken to a never-ending pearl clutching that just doesn’t slow down and consider. Also telling is that he rarely engages with critique, either.
A well thought out essay. People want to make the AI ethics issue so black and white. Well, those people are, well, challenged.
I'm completely against people asking for a Pixar style image and then trying to foist it off as a Pixar image. That's totally wrong. But again, it's not AI it's unscrupulous people who are wannabe creators abusing AI as an image generation tool. Without AI these people would be nowhere but on the fringe, envying other people more creative and talented as themselves.
So, what about the case where I ask AI to render an image in a photorealistic style? I'm not ripping off anyone. How about when I ask for a style and color palette and lighting of, say Rembrandt or Vermeer? I can sleep soundly at night knowing I'm not violating any ethical issues the anti-AI crowd claims.
When it comes to writing, again it's people who abuse the tool. These creative wannabes abuse the tool so they can call themselves "writers" when without AI they couldn't put together a collection of words to make a believable statement.
Just like people will drive drunk that's not an inditement of automobiles. It's humans who are cheating and being abusive, not AI.
I'm not interested in a false equivalance between humans and algorithms. Humans study the works of other humans and get inspired to create similar but different works, which takes effort, skill, and time. AI makes a mockery of this process by turning into an instant factory function - replicate an artists entire repetoire of work in minutes. I don’t care about whether it's grammatically, semantically, or legally correct to say AI is plagiarizing. The point is, AI is an insult to art, and AI can't generate anything at all without consuming vast quantities of prior material that is commonly taken without consent.
Well, 1. This isn't a false equivalence. You just don't like the comparison. And 2. That you don't care about grammar, semantics, or law says it all about #1. Your argument is emotional, not rational, and that's fine. In fact, it's exactly the arguments I use in my novel about AI. You're also in good company, as the same argument has been made for the written word, the printing press, photography, and cell phone cameras.
Are you a utopian accelerationist? Do you believe in the singularity? Why disparage humanity as being similar in any way to statistical algorithms and why act like it's totally okay if techlords usurp human thought and craft in order to consolidate more wealth for themselves, leaving us devoid of spirit or purpose? I don't think you're rational enough, you're just fixating on winning the argument even though you've never grasped the plot.
But we will. AI's will be smarter. If we are nice, hopefully they will take care of us and provide for us. If we aren't, well, there are plenty of SF stories where emachines don't see the need for meat to exist.
Heads up, ChatGPT doesn't have access to Substack. I asked. I use it to help me edit my articles, cut them down, organize them better, etc. just like a human editor. I don't know if the other AIs do. Would be an important question to ask if you're on Medium, Beehiv, and some of the other platforms too - I don't know if they're off-limits too.
You can turn it on or off in the settings I think. That said, there's certainly a question when it does get access. I use Grammarly to help with editing and ChatGPT does great for synthesizing research.
Your clear distinctions are worthy of highlight as the anti AI bandwagon gains momentum.
Just last night I enjoyed a spirited conversation with someone about AI. My argument being that the human brain is essentially a LLM (currently it seems advanced). In essence, all in the universe is calculate-able with enough computing power.
I appreciate that. I find that the pro-AI group is actually easier to deal with, whereas the anti-AI group often misunderstands the human brain, culture, social learning, and more. Anti-AI misses the fundamentals of who we are in their arguments, while then stretching to make legal and ethical claims that also misuse concepts.
I dislike the pro-AI lack of respect for traditions and culture, but I don't find them ignorant. In fact, they want to create something human-like like so they're willing to learn about who we are.
If you ever want a dose on anti-AI, just find any article on the subject in the NYT and then go to the attached comment section. It's like reading notes from a luddite convention!
I’ve seen that in spades. It’s crazy how wound up they get without understanding who we are.
That’s a helpful distinction that I have not considered. I wonder if these two camps will separate (and galvanize) predictably based on political affiliation.
I'm seeing an equal distribution politically. I don't see any corrolation.
I should get CEUs for reading your work
Haha. I’ll have to figure out how to do that.
I had not heard of your Singularity books. I just made a suggestion that my local library system purchase the two books for their collection. Usually, they approve my suggestions.
You should ask your readers to do this for you.
P.S. I hope the books don't disappoint.
That’s awesome. Thanks. I did the same for my local library. And I too, hope the books don’t disappoint! 🤣 So far they’re getting great reviews.
"It really doesn’t help to make accusations of plagiarism or malicious intent against a tool, and it doesn’t help to misunderstand how AI works or how humans are creative."
---
Gioia has a habit of spewing this kind of 'woe is me' and 'I hate AI' BS, which is why I unsubscribed from his substack quite a while back. The constant complaining was annoying. And of course, like too many SS writers, he would hold much of his writings behind the paywall.
Your viewpoint seems much more realistic and enlightened.
Very, very, very few people are uniquely creative. Almost everyone has been influenced by people and things in the past. If I read books on a subject, become well versed in the subject and then write my own book on the same subject, have I stolen the work of all those I learned from? I think not.
Yeah, Ted has taken to a never-ending pearl clutching that just doesn’t slow down and consider. Also telling is that he rarely engages with critique, either.
Remarkably sensible. Lots of people will hate it!
Lots of people do hate it! 🤓 I'm ok with challenging bias.
A well thought out essay. People want to make the AI ethics issue so black and white. Well, those people are, well, challenged.
I'm completely against people asking for a Pixar style image and then trying to foist it off as a Pixar image. That's totally wrong. But again, it's not AI it's unscrupulous people who are wannabe creators abusing AI as an image generation tool. Without AI these people would be nowhere but on the fringe, envying other people more creative and talented as themselves.
So, what about the case where I ask AI to render an image in a photorealistic style? I'm not ripping off anyone. How about when I ask for a style and color palette and lighting of, say Rembrandt or Vermeer? I can sleep soundly at night knowing I'm not violating any ethical issues the anti-AI crowd claims.
When it comes to writing, again it's people who abuse the tool. These creative wannabes abuse the tool so they can call themselves "writers" when without AI they couldn't put together a collection of words to make a believable statement.
Just like people will drive drunk that's not an inditement of automobiles. It's humans who are cheating and being abusive, not AI.
I totally agree and Iike how you described it.
I'm not interested in a false equivalance between humans and algorithms. Humans study the works of other humans and get inspired to create similar but different works, which takes effort, skill, and time. AI makes a mockery of this process by turning into an instant factory function - replicate an artists entire repetoire of work in minutes. I don’t care about whether it's grammatically, semantically, or legally correct to say AI is plagiarizing. The point is, AI is an insult to art, and AI can't generate anything at all without consuming vast quantities of prior material that is commonly taken without consent.
Well, 1. This isn't a false equivalence. You just don't like the comparison. And 2. That you don't care about grammar, semantics, or law says it all about #1. Your argument is emotional, not rational, and that's fine. In fact, it's exactly the arguments I use in my novel about AI. You're also in good company, as the same argument has been made for the written word, the printing press, photography, and cell phone cameras.
Are you a utopian accelerationist? Do you believe in the singularity? Why disparage humanity as being similar in any way to statistical algorithms and why act like it's totally okay if techlords usurp human thought and craft in order to consolidate more wealth for themselves, leaving us devoid of spirit or purpose? I don't think you're rational enough, you're just fixating on winning the argument even though you've never grasped the plot.
There is nothing special about humans. We are just another form of life in a universe that is likely spilling over with life.
At some point, not too distant in the future, an AI is likely to be in control of all humans.
We could have a Terminator future or we could have a Iain M. Banks, Culture future run by benevolent AI Minds. I'm hoping for the latter.
I think people will cede control to AI like they already are with the social media algorithms. I just hope humanity doesn’t lose agency.
"I just hope humanity doesn’t lose agency."
----
But we will. AI's will be smarter. If we are nice, hopefully they will take care of us and provide for us. If we aren't, well, there are plenty of SF stories where emachines don't see the need for meat to exist.
I like the Sci-Fi stories that show how well they work together without antagonism.
Oh god another robot bootlicker. Bow down to robot overlords if you want, I choose my own path.
The culture novels were juvenile and mostly filled with body horror and cheesy action. Why do crypto and AI bros love them so much?
That's a great strawman. You must not have really read what I said. In fact, I wrote a novel about it.
https://thesingularitychronicles.com/
This was really helpful in understanding the arguments. It certainly forced me to reconsider the 'simple answer'.
That’s awesome to hear!
Heads up, ChatGPT doesn't have access to Substack. I asked. I use it to help me edit my articles, cut them down, organize them better, etc. just like a human editor. I don't know if the other AIs do. Would be an important question to ask if you're on Medium, Beehiv, and some of the other platforms too - I don't know if they're off-limits too.
You can turn it on or off in the settings I think. That said, there's certainly a question when it does get access. I use Grammarly to help with editing and ChatGPT does great for synthesizing research.