Good provocations for a Monday morning. If I’m honest, this question just makes me mad. “And how can we prove that human intelligence and consciousness are unique from computers?” I don’t want to prove it, but I guess a future world of Terminators that look like us and say things like us and maybe mock bleed like us means we need to refine our pattern assessments. I actually failed the NYT AI vs real photo test and realized I had no framework or tools to really understand what was fake or real. I think that’s what you’re getting at.
I feel like AI right now is making me double down on goals where commodification isn’t the goal. So taking photos of a shadow. Or a strip mall. AI is going to supplant stock photography and probably optimize for pseudo real shots of “young person looking at half dome.” But AI is built on scale. It won’t scale untold stories. Or that’s my hope. Once it does, I guess we will be screwed because at that point, culture will be outsourced.
Thanks, homie. For me, what’s even more troubling than the inability to distinguish AI from real photos is the fact that computers can make this distinction far better than humans.
I'm half grateful and half annoyed every time I ask my writing program to use AI to "improve my writing." Without fail, it does improve my writing, and I end up incorporating most of its suggestions without paying for a human editor, but I'm still resentful. Within ten years, I don't think there will be much that I can do better than a robot — not remembering faces, recognizing others' emotions, or coming up with ten great ideas for a self-employed business in Oaxaca.
Perhaps the upside is that we may start to focus more on the process than the outcomes. The chess resurgence is the usual example. I have no interest in playing chess against a machine, but I had a blast playing my friend Juan Carlos in San Miguel. Maybe I'll ask Dulce to get me reacquainted with the dark room. Objectively, AI will produce more interesting images, but I'll find pleasure in the process.
Right. But again, if you think about your “top ten list” in regard to scale, AI will likely just build the same thing for everyone. I always like talking about Shakespeare and his work creation. In his time, he’s credited with creating 1,700 new words we use today. He created “bedroom”, for example. Would AI create, then sanction, and adopt “bedroom”? I think AI streamlines a lot, but humans will always be the curators to say yes or no. I think our biggest sign of intelligence is to say “fuck that” to things. ;)
Love this question. Have you read James Bridle's Ways of Being yet? The book goes into the nature of intelligence and explores it from three angles: human, natural, and artificial. Worth checking it out!
I haven’t, but it’s in my queue now. Another friend recommended Max Bennett’s “A Brief History of Intelligence,” which also looks interesting. Appreciate the rec!
Good provocations for a Monday morning. If I’m honest, this question just makes me mad. “And how can we prove that human intelligence and consciousness are unique from computers?” I don’t want to prove it, but I guess a future world of Terminators that look like us and say things like us and maybe mock bleed like us means we need to refine our pattern assessments. I actually failed the NYT AI vs real photo test and realized I had no framework or tools to really understand what was fake or real. I think that’s what you’re getting at.
I feel like AI right now is making me double down on goals where commodification isn’t the goal. So taking photos of a shadow. Or a strip mall. AI is going to supplant stock photography and probably optimize for pseudo real shots of “young person looking at half dome.” But AI is built on scale. It won’t scale untold stories. Or that’s my hope. Once it does, I guess we will be screwed because at that point, culture will be outsourced.
Thanks, homie. For me, what’s even more troubling than the inability to distinguish AI from real photos is the fact that computers can make this distinction far better than humans.
I'm half grateful and half annoyed every time I ask my writing program to use AI to "improve my writing." Without fail, it does improve my writing, and I end up incorporating most of its suggestions without paying for a human editor, but I'm still resentful. Within ten years, I don't think there will be much that I can do better than a robot — not remembering faces, recognizing others' emotions, or coming up with ten great ideas for a self-employed business in Oaxaca.
Perhaps the upside is that we may start to focus more on the process than the outcomes. The chess resurgence is the usual example. I have no interest in playing chess against a machine, but I had a blast playing my friend Juan Carlos in San Miguel. Maybe I'll ask Dulce to get me reacquainted with the dark room. Objectively, AI will produce more interesting images, but I'll find pleasure in the process.
Right. But again, if you think about your “top ten list” in regard to scale, AI will likely just build the same thing for everyone. I always like talking about Shakespeare and his work creation. In his time, he’s credited with creating 1,700 new words we use today. He created “bedroom”, for example. Would AI create, then sanction, and adopt “bedroom”? I think AI streamlines a lot, but humans will always be the curators to say yes or no. I think our biggest sign of intelligence is to say “fuck that” to things. ;)
Love this question. Have you read James Bridle's Ways of Being yet? The book goes into the nature of intelligence and explores it from three angles: human, natural, and artificial. Worth checking it out!
I haven’t, but it’s in my queue now. Another friend recommended Max Bennett’s “A Brief History of Intelligence,” which also looks interesting. Appreciate the rec!