Difference between revisions of "AI"
| (8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | |||
| + | |||
Art created by AI is derivative. It cannot produce original content. If it could then it could produce content without being seeded, but it can't. |
Art created by AI is derivative. It cannot produce original content. If it could then it could produce content without being seeded, but it can't. |
||
| + | |||
| + | Some people counter that most humans, they assert, can't come up with original ideas. |
||
| + | |||
| + | This argument is non-sequitar. By definition, the humans producing original art *can* come up with new ideas |
||
| + | |||
| + | Some may argue that humans can't produce original content without learning language or how to use their hands but this argue is specious. The learning involved is different. AIs must be fed with content before they can produce output. Humans can produce visual artwork without ever having seen visual artwork. We know this because blind people have produced visual artwork. |
||
| + | |||
| + | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C5%9Fref_Arma%C4%9Fan |
||
Wide range of meanings of AI. |
Wide range of meanings of AI. |
||
| + | |||
| + | https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-26/ai-threatened-jobs-are-mostly-held-by-women-study-shows |
||
| + | |||
| + | If AI (and automation more generally) was going to take everyone's jobs then people would be working shorter hours, not longer hours. |
||
| + | |||
| + | https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-28/productivity-commission-growth-report/105336036 |
||
| + | |||
| + | While their study is no doubt detailed, the general scenario has been around for decades. The problem is that in reality it's all a bit more complicated. A lot of proponents of these sorts of ideas presume that AI will have the benefits of intelligence but without the problems. I think this is unlikely. Problems like laziness, procrastination and even mental illnesses may well be intrinsic to intelligence. Moreover some problems are actually more likely with high intelligence. Maybe we can't build a superbrain without it having crippling anxiety. Intelligence in our universe may well be self-limiting. |
||
| + | |||
| + | We keep seeing engineers talking about how AI will replace most jobs but do we see economists saying this? These people are talking outside of their professional are of expertise, they are doing so with authority and they are being publised by the MSM. Being an expert in AI is not the same thing as being an expert in the potential social and economic impacts of AI. These claims go against the Luddite fallacy. |
||
| + | |||
| + | https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/youre-a-peasant-exgoogle-executive-exposes-grim-ai-reality/news-story/c861d146b38e26dcd96be505c082e2cb |
||
{{AI}} |
{{AI}} |
||
| ⚫ | |||
Latest revision as of 00:29, 8 August 2025
AI is a draft article and may contain little or no information. The article will not be published on A Voice for Men or appear in random article selections. Wiki4Men is looking for trustworthy editors that can turn draft articles in to featured articles. Information on how to apply is on the Main Page.
Notes
Art created by AI is derivative. It cannot produce original content. If it could then it could produce content without being seeded, but it can't.
Some people counter that most humans, they assert, can't come up with original ideas.
This argument is non-sequitar. By definition, the humans producing original art *can* come up with new ideas
Some may argue that humans can't produce original content without learning language or how to use their hands but this argue is specious. The learning involved is different. AIs must be fed with content before they can produce output. Humans can produce visual artwork without ever having seen visual artwork. We know this because blind people have produced visual artwork.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C5%9Fref_Arma%C4%9Fan
Wide range of meanings of AI.
If AI (and automation more generally) was going to take everyone's jobs then people would be working shorter hours, not longer hours.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-28/productivity-commission-growth-report/105336036
While their study is no doubt detailed, the general scenario has been around for decades. The problem is that in reality it's all a bit more complicated. A lot of proponents of these sorts of ideas presume that AI will have the benefits of intelligence but without the problems. I think this is unlikely. Problems like laziness, procrastination and even mental illnesses may well be intrinsic to intelligence. Moreover some problems are actually more likely with high intelligence. Maybe we can't build a superbrain without it having crippling anxiety. Intelligence in our universe may well be self-limiting.
We keep seeing engineers talking about how AI will replace most jobs but do we see economists saying this? These people are talking outside of their professional are of expertise, they are doing so with authority and they are being publised by the MSM. Being an expert in AI is not the same thing as being an expert in the potential social and economic impacts of AI. These claims go against the Luddite fallacy.