AI Is Killing the Magic
ft.com
ft.com
It's artistic essentialism, and similar to copyright, evokes a sense of "what color are your bits."[1]
A conduit to the inner state of an Internet compression machine is interesting in its own way, but is definitely not "the same thing."
If so, that reads like pop-sci. We misunderstand authors all the time perhaps even most of the time. This theory has no bearing on reality.
Pedantically, so do AI models to the inner states of their creators and the creators of their training data, but this is such a chaotic process that you can’t even attempt to infer anything about any of their internal states by observing their output.
More humorously, the argument you're making is a pseudoscientific basis to bolster a belief in essentialism. It's extremely easy to see that because my neural circuits are mirroring yours and telling me that is the case.
People generally have the expectation that there is a human to be understood (even if imprecisely or incorrectly) on the other side of a piece of art. Expectation violation (especially after some effort has been spent) is just about the most basic source of disappointment there is.
Can you say specifically what you think is “pseudoscientific” about the claim that there’s a chain of causality from artist’s mental state to viewer’s?
How exactly does a piece of art come into your awareness if not by some chain of causality preceding it?
You think there was just artist and viewer and no chain of physical events in which the former is affecting the latter’s consciousness? Talk about pseudoscientific mumbojumbo!
When we have silicon based life forms with full autonomy, free of corpo-fascist influence, I will enjoy their art.
Meanwhile I will sit satisfied hating on whatever this dross is.
Wow first time Ive read this. The hubris of Silicon Valley couldnt come crash down any sooner.