Humans are also machines. Some might give us special properties such as souls, depending on your religious beliefs, but there is no science backing that up. All living creates are incredibly complicated and convoluted biochemical machines, shaped by evolution.
For me, it's really a case of it being ruined because someone told me an AI wrote it.
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.
For some content I agree with you. For example, a heart warming story about a girl losing her mother to alcoholism and how she coped. I don't want to read that from an AI. The literal exact same story feels different if I know an Ai built it.
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 actually agree with this. Probably because virtual worlds are already ahuman to begin with. They're artificial, machine worlds and so there's nothing lost by having them generated by machine.
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.
This view is actually a fallacy and it’s why we’re ruining the environment.
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.
Comments
Humans are also machines. Some might give us special properties such as souls, depending on your religious beliefs, but there is no science backing that up. All living creates are incredibly complicated and convoluted biochemical machines, shaped by evolution.
For me, it's really a case of it being ruined because someone told me an AI wrote it.
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.
For some content I agree with you. For example, a heart warming story about a girl losing her mother to alcoholism and how she coped. I don't want to read that from an AI. The literal exact same story feels different if I know an Ai built it.
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 actually agree with this. Probably because virtual worlds are already ahuman to begin with. They're artificial, machine worlds and so there's nothing lost by having them generated by machine.
I think I agree, but I'm less certain.
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.
This view is actually a fallacy and it’s why we’re ruining the environment.
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.
Sure, if you zoom out a level of abstraction or three. But I'm sure you know what I was getting at.