Fair enough, but I absolutely see humans as being more special than machines. What interests me in a story, art, poem, whatever, is that it's a human communication. Even if a machine can do it technically as well, or better, I want the human one, not the computed one.
A world where everything is generated by a machine is a dystopian world, in my view.
I guess we are different in this case, as I primarily read something for its content, rather than its author (although the author is often a good proxy for the quality of the content). A world where I can instantly generate whatever content I want is a utopia for me, rather than a dystopia.
And I don't want to deny you that. My fear is that your preference will be the only choice. One person's heaven can indeed be another person's hell.
But at least a lot of those people will be trying to express something even if all AI can give them is an approximation of what they would make if they had the talent.
But that just makes the issue more important. I don't want to lose what little meaningful art is actually left. Art serves a critically important social function, and if that art is no longer from people, that function is no longer served.
Is a world where you already know what the content is, and thus there won't be any point in taking it in.
And we have to do this to some degree to simply navigate the world of content. I already filter for action films or documentaries depending on my mood.
Sure, a world where I have to already know the entire script for a film to have it appear is (while technically astonishing) not great for me individually, one where I can say I want a new Poirot and get it is incredible.
Humans are the ones who created the very AI that you're talking about. The AI is not an act of nature but something made real by human creativity.
I don't understand why you (and others) think this is an important point, though. Let's say, for the sake of argument, not just that you're correct, but that we're not even made of flesh. That we're actual robots called "humans".
I don't see how that changes anything. I'd still prefer "human" communication over communication from a different machine pretending to be "human".
Why? Because what others of my species/model feels and thinks has a unique importance and meaning to me, and having fake versions of that communication around reduces my connection to others of my species/model and devalues the society of them that I am a part of.
The content may be entertaining, emotional, and compelling. But I just won't view it the same way, because I am not in communion with an AI the same way I would be with a conscious, mindful human. There's no space for meaning because half of the author-reader relationship is missing.
A cynical mind would suggest I am seeking not the communion itself, but the rewards such a communion provides and they're probably right. If you lie and claim a human wrote it (and it is otherwise indistinguishable from human work), I will probably appreciate the work the same way I would a human-written work.
If AI were a conscious being, I don't think I'd mind that they aren't human, the same way I wouldn't mind reading the work of a space alien. There would still be a mind on the other end. But until and if that ever happens, if I know about it, I don't think it'll ever be the same for me.
In contrast, a new virtual world for GTA 8 -- I don't care if that is from an AI or a human. I feel like either could be just as immersive as the other.
I certainly don't find things particularly meaningful in the folds of a terrain, the placement of trees, or the exact shape of a background building. This is all 'canvas' and I pretty much assume a computer did most of the work with humans doing some combination of providing input and output to the program. If AI took this over entirely, I don't think it would change anything.
However, placing particular buildings, terrain features, or what-have-you can be meaningful. A bar next to a church may be cliché, but if a human did it, there is meaning to be had; if an AI did it, it's just two buildings and either a coincidence or the same cliché that the AI has learned.
Put another way, I think virtual worlds function as both canvas and art. AI handling the canvas doesn't change anything for me. AI handling the art, does.
I agree entirely -- as long as the AI, or space alien, wasn't pretending to be human or replace humans.
You’re not a machine, you’re part of an ecosystem, you’re like a plant, but for some reason you can move around more freely than a plant so you think you’re detached from the earth and that you’re some software running in hardware but you’re not, you’re integrated into the biosphere. Is the planet a machine ? Maybe, but comparing ourselves to machines is just an analogy to help us understand ourselves.
A human can go into space but not for long, even when we do go we need to take the environment , at least the atmospheric conditions with us to survive. While man has walked on the the moon, we never touched another planet with our own hands.
Can you explain why exactly? Is it a religious view? Seems to me we're just meat robots.
Yeah. What have humans ever done for us?
Except for roads. And buildings. And infrastructure and machines.
Art is a way in which we grapple with such questions. I am yet to see a surprising contriubtion by an AI.
I'd imagine that you'd prioritize saving a human child from a fire over saving a machine or a meat based robot. Why?
My point is your composition or substrate or whatever is irrelevant.
> Can you explain why exactly?
Because humans designed and built machines before machines could design and build humans.