^The Marvelization of Society

I really find these “oh look AI wrote a symphony” etc arguments absolute bullshit. Yeah, a computer program was trained to replicate an act of human creativity with data from acts of human creativity.

This is about as insightful as a chimpanzee smoking a cigarette.

Gramsci wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2025 1:51 am I really find these “oh look AI wrote a symphony” etc arguments absolute bullshit. Yeah, a computer program was trained to replicate an act of human creativity with data from acts of human creativity.

This is about as insightful as a chimpanzee smoking a cigarette.

what do you think you're arguing against?
AI is not eliminating artists' jobs,
or it is and we shouldn't worry much about it?

hbiden@onlyfans.com wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2025 1:58 am

Gramsci wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2025 1:51 am I really find these “oh look AI wrote a symphony” etc arguments absolute bullshit. Yeah, a computer program was trained to replicate an act of human creativity with data from acts of human creativity.

This is about as insightful as a chimpanzee smoking a cigarette.

what do you think you're arguing against?
AI is not eliminating artists' jobs,
or it is and we shouldn't worry much about it?

I’m not arguing against, I just don’t think this is what it’s for. AI is great for doing the heavy lifting of “office” work, medical research and diagnostics etc, but replacing human creativity isn’t feasible or desirable because it relies on training data that comes from human beings. Will it innovate? Possibly, but if the limitations are existing works then the innovation is likely to come from churning out thousands of options and a human stopping the wheel spinning and thinking “huh, I haven’t seen that combo before”. So possibly it speeds up the process of genre blending that is how human art evolves… mostly I just think it’s business thinking “great, I don’t have to pay someone to create background music for a video game.”

This isn’t what should interest us in AI and is about a silly as anthropomorphic robots. Robots are tools, making one that looks like a person isn’t the point. Drilling a hole in a side panel is…

PS I work in an industry that’s being impacted by AI, architecture. So far it’s okay for computational design, but that’s heavy lifting not designing. At the moment it’s great for studying a site for something like high volume residential or commercial to understand the capacity, economics etc. But the design part is still very much a collaborative human endeavour. Could you train the AI with every variable that goes into a building? Sure, but there are still things like community consultation and non commercial client engagement which AI can’t do. Try getting AI to design a building in Oxford University, a maze of ancient buildings and incredibly strict planning rules…

hbiden@onlyfans.com wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2025 1:58 am what do you think you're arguing against?
AI is not eliminating artists' jobs,
or it is and we shouldn't worry much about it?

It is most definitely eliminating artists jobs. I dunno at what level it currently is exactly, but that is very much the hope of Hollywood and commercial studios.

Gramsci wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2025 3:36 am

hbiden@onlyfans.com wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2025 1:58 am

Gramsci wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2025 1:51 am I really find these “oh look AI wrote a symphony” etc arguments absolute bullshit. Yeah, a computer program was trained to replicate an act of human creativity with data from acts of human creativity.

This is about as insightful as a chimpanzee smoking a cigarette.

what do you think you're arguing against?
AI is not eliminating artists' jobs,
or it is and we shouldn't worry much about it?

I’m not arguing against, I just don’t think this is what it’s for. AI is great for doing the heavy lifting of “office” work, medical research and diagnostics etc

right. i pleaded with my kids to read this tweet but they're too technoskeptical at this point (20 and 16). "dad, AI is cheating! dad, don't share your medical info! i think my professor knows more than AI!" they are blinded by a misconception/ideology that will take some effort to undo.

but replacing human creativity isn’t feasible or desirable because it relies on training data that comes from human beings. Will it innovate? Possibly, but if the limitations are existing works then the innovation is likely to come from churning out thousands of options and a human stopping the wheel spinning and thinking “huh, I haven’t seen that combo before”. So possibly it speeds up the process of genre blending that is how human art evolves… mostly I just think it’s business thinking “great, I don’t have to pay someone to create background music for a video game.”

This isn’t what should interest us in AI and is about a silly as anthropomorphic robots. Robots are tools, making one that looks like a person isn’t the point. Drilling a hole in a side panel is…

and this is where i'm proud to have technoskeptical kids, so it's a double edged sword. they almost get it.

I’ve got a good friend that probably the smartest person I know. A Medical Doctor, with a physics post grad and PhD in AI, that builds 3D full colour x ray machines as a business. He’s also a radiologist in New Zealand’s public healthcare system and on the hard left.

He thinks he is significantly worse at diagnosing from scans than the AI systems he uses to the point he thinks humans shouldn’t be doing that task.

That conversation kind of blew my mind. His comment was human radiologists are basically doing “bird watching”.

Gramsci wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2025 3:39 pm I’ve got a good friend that probably the smartest person I know. A Medical Doctor, with a physics post grad and PhD in AI, that builds 3D full colour x ray machines as a business. He’s also a radiologist in New Zealand’s public healthcare system and on the hard left.

He thinks he is significantly worse at diagnosing from scans than the AI systems he uses to the point he thinks humans shouldn’t be doing that task.

That conversation kind of blew my mind. His comment was human radiologists are basically doing “bird watching”.

Classification on specific datasets is one of the few things existing tech excels at. It's only a tiny part of what would make up overall 'intelligence'.

andyman wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2025 4:34 pm

Gramsci wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2025 3:39 pm I’ve got a good friend that probably the smartest person I know. A Medical Doctor, with a physics post grad and PhD in AI, that builds 3D full colour x ray machines as a business. He’s also a radiologist in New Zealand’s public healthcare system and on the hard left.

He thinks he is significantly worse at diagnosing from scans than the AI systems he uses to the point he thinks humans shouldn’t be doing that task.

That conversation kind of blew my mind. His comment was human radiologists are basically doing “bird watching”.

Classification on specific datasets is one of the few things existing tech excels at. It's only a tiny part of what would make up overall 'intelligence'.

AI is just branding really in its current state. In this case it’s not “intelligent”, it’s just great at analysing images after being trained on huge data sets of other images. This is all current “AI” is. None of this stuff thinks, Chat GPT is basically just Google that can form anthropomorphic responses.

As far as I can tell “we”, actually “they” are no where close to Artificial General Intelligence. I’m sure some claim to be, but creating a “mind” in a jar has massive moral implications, not just technical. I lean towards the Biological Chauvinist camp on AGI. There is something fundamental about the development of what it is to be human and the biological carrier that your mind develops in.

So AGI opens up huge questions across a lot of fields.

A lot of the hype around AI at the moment is looking at entirely the wrong things. As I said so far it’s just Musk’s making stupid human-like robots because he an idiot and thinks that sci-fi movies are real. Or more likely just because he’s fucking clueless and is trying to impress some imaginary group of online dickheads.