As far as parodies go, this one is quite funny.
Not as funny as reality though, where AI is suddenly good at art and writing, but still bad at flipping burgers, or simply navigating floor of a house.
Not as funny as reality though, where AI is suddenly good at art and writing, but still bad at flipping burgers, or simply navigating floor of a house.
> Moravec wrote in 1988, "it is comparatively easy to make computers exhibit adult level performance on intelligence tests or playing checkers, and difficult or impossible to give them the skills of a one-year-old when it comes to perception and mobility".
That is, few compute resources are needed for a program that can beat human checkers players, as compared to what’s required to solve perception problems.
I wonder if you have a different thought of what “reasoning” was being discussed, as you switched the term to “high level reasoning”?
If I have a human and an AI go illustrate a manual for assembling my new sofa, or produce the advertising materials for the grand opening of a local restaurant, it's much easier for the AI to clearly produce an incorrect illustration in a way a human generally wouldn't.
In short, I mostly agree that good art is communicative, but also that some of that is because of the context where someone shows you something and tells you it's communicative and maybe what it's intended to communicate. There's plenty of famous works of art that don't look that different than programmatically generated NFT works, let alone things Stable Diffusion does.
People are really good at generating meaning and patterns from actually literally nothing. See conspiracy theories and the gambler's fallacy. If you know it came from an AI that intends nothing, it's easy to see the seams that tell you it's all pieces of meaningless nothing. If you're told that it's from some artist with a long history and passion for expressing some message, it's easy to read communication into anything.