I’m gonna preface by stating that I’m on your side and also hate this whole AI thing. It was neat at first but a bunch of dick bags decided to turn it into a scam and now I can’t afford ram for my budget pc.
One thing I can’t quite let go of is how much the line “they’re predictive engines that predict the text that comes next based on a huge repository of mostly-stolen content.” Applies to us as well. What is the difference between thoughts stollen and thoughts consumed? Is the philosophy I read not just information stored in a meaty hard-drive? Ai doesn’t comprehend information, it just regurgitates it in a manor that looks understandable. I also contain information I don’t understand but can tell you on demand in a way that looks understandable. There’s a lot of statements about AI just being “this” but frequently I see “this” and wonder why it’s any different than when humans do it? “Ai doesn’t make art because art takes soul and feeling” but what does that say about corperate logos, clip art, or the millionth furry porn OC an artist must make to pay the bills? Those also have no soul or feeling.
I don’t like AI either, but I want to understand the philosophical implications of these arguments.
What is the difference between thoughts stollen and thoughts consumed? Is the philosophy I read not just information stored in a meaty hard-drive? Ai doesn’t comprehend information, it just regurgitates it in a manor that looks understandable. I also contain information I don’t understand but can tell you on demand in a way that looks understandable.
When you encounter new information- new ideas, or art, or just have a new experience- you process that information in the context of your prior understanding; the thoughts you have are definitely yours, and not “stolen.” in the same sense as generative AI spewing out artwork.
Some people say the same thing about Andy Wharhol, though. So we still need to have that argument out.
There’s a lot of statements about AI just being “this” but frequently I see “this” and wonder why it’s any different than when humans do it? “Ai doesn’t make art because art takes soul and feeling” but what does that say about corperate logos, clip art, or the millionth furry porn OC an artist must make to pay the bills? Those also have no soul or feeling.
We don’t even know if we’re not also “this”. We’re definitely conscious, we’re aware.
I’d probably put generative AI and LLMs on the same level of awareness as a tree. They follow an algorithm that allows them to adapt in subtle ways to their changing environments (Growing towards lightsources, taking in or giving up nutrients into the soil. they even have “community” in the sense that the mycellium spreads those nutrients around to other trees that need it… lol)
I don’t like AI either, but I want to understand the philosophical implications of these arguments.
It’s not that I don’t particularly like AI, per se. it’s what the techbros are using it for that piss me off. I would say that AI rights need to be established now so that we don’t cause the fucking AI Apocalypse. (because some incel is going to turn a sentient AI into it’s fuckdoll. or worse.)(not to mention coming after everyone’s jobs. slightly nsfw, but here’s the latest “WTF, Techbros?”
I’m gonna preface by stating that I’m on your side and also hate this whole AI thing. It was neat at first but a bunch of dick bags decided to turn it into a scam and now I can’t afford ram for my budget pc.
One thing I can’t quite let go of is how much the line “they’re predictive engines that predict the text that comes next based on a huge repository of mostly-stolen content.” Applies to us as well. What is the difference between thoughts stollen and thoughts consumed? Is the philosophy I read not just information stored in a meaty hard-drive? Ai doesn’t comprehend information, it just regurgitates it in a manor that looks understandable. I also contain information I don’t understand but can tell you on demand in a way that looks understandable. There’s a lot of statements about AI just being “this” but frequently I see “this” and wonder why it’s any different than when humans do it? “Ai doesn’t make art because art takes soul and feeling” but what does that say about corperate logos, clip art, or the millionth furry porn OC an artist must make to pay the bills? Those also have no soul or feeling.
I don’t like AI either, but I want to understand the philosophical implications of these arguments.
When you encounter new information- new ideas, or art, or just have a new experience- you process that information in the context of your prior understanding; the thoughts you have are definitely yours, and not “stolen.” in the same sense as generative AI spewing out artwork.
Some people say the same thing about Andy Wharhol, though. So we still need to have that argument out.
We don’t even know if we’re not also “this”. We’re definitely conscious, we’re aware.
I’d probably put generative AI and LLMs on the same level of awareness as a tree. They follow an algorithm that allows them to adapt in subtle ways to their changing environments (Growing towards lightsources, taking in or giving up nutrients into the soil. they even have “community” in the sense that the mycellium spreads those nutrients around to other trees that need it… lol)
It’s not that I don’t particularly like AI, per se. it’s what the techbros are using it for that piss me off. I would say that AI rights need to be established now so that we don’t cause the fucking AI Apocalypse. (because some incel is going to turn a sentient AI into it’s fuckdoll. or worse.)(not to mention coming after everyone’s jobs. slightly nsfw, but here’s the latest “WTF, Techbros?”