lied and included steampunk? not really no I missed it.
"Lied"?
Lies require intention to mislead. I was just joking, obviously, making a steampunk reference to grant a little levity to our discussion in line with your concept that "AI isn't real". It's particularly poignant when you act like LLMs do is NBD, "just" this and that, and actively block out the meteoric rise of AI tech giants who have heavily disrupted the tech sector and made and destroyed many fortunes on the NASDAQ. And then there's the effect on other industries that's just only now starting. It's hilarious to me how you act like none of that is significant to anyone, and this technology is somehow not at all impressive, at best a "glorified search engine".
In other words, It was a joke meant to underscore how quick you were to downplay LLMs impact. "Let's get real" is a play on the absurdity of claiming, "AI isn't real."
How about a remix is "less original" than the first song? I do believe that to be true.
Using a vocal cut or sample from an existing song and creating a whole new song around it is, I suppose if one wants to split hairs,
slightly "less original" than whoever produced the original cut, though arguably that's not always true and it sometimes poses its own unique challenges. Regardless, that has zero impact on whether something is real. You're using a very loose definition of "real" which is not synonymous with "original".
flipping a sample still takes musical ability.
That's my point. You're arguing something else entirely and you don't seem to realize where we agree and disagree, but instead keep assigning default counterpoints to me as though I had made those points, personally.
Because it does not believe or understand anything...
I think
you don't understand. You wrote in this very thread earlier that an AI LLM produces things based on what "it believes it was prompted". So which one is it?
No it is not capable of belief.
Then why did you say: "[AI]
believes it was prompted"? Your words, not mine. Did you misspeak? Obviously. But that's my point: it isn't like one can easily, if at all, tell the difference between "true sentience" and generative predictive text responses, especially when the distinction is less important, and the LLM isn't
trying or programmed to trick you into thinking it's something that it is not.
This technology is has crazy potential and is already being implemented in ways that far exceed the "glorified search engine" description. AI has very impressive pattern recognition capabilities.
I find it odd when certain people hate/fear AI. They declare they will
NEVER use it. Seems stubborn. I get that giant data centers are using shit tons of water and straining the power grid in places. Obviously we need solutions to these issues, but that doesn't negate all value from the technology.
it was a metaphor not an assumption.
1. I wasn't talking about your supposed "metaphor" about how you think technology makes you weaker. 2. that was not a metaphor anyway, because you weren't comparing two things directly (as opposed to similes and anologies), 3. you were making what could either be interpreted as a so-so aphorism if loosely interpreted, or a self-invented moral platitude.
So you personally listen to A.I music.....
I don't intentionally seek it out, but I have no real qualms with a music artist using AI tools to improve their productions or structure their songwriting.
It isn't. That seems to be the point. People have used AI to do interesting stuff like this, too:
where do you put A.I in that metaphor
Again, you never made a metaphor. AI could be useful to musicians, songwriters, and producers in generating inspiration or explaining certain nuances to music theory and how to craft certain sounds without having to trawl through hours of YouTube videos without much relation to the actual thing they're trying to learn, for example. That knowledge and the ability to target and find it so quickly can be quite useful/powerful.
You failed to complete the sentence
Oh calm down. I'm trying to address all your points, and I missed one. No one likes to have orders barked at them.
--- A.I. is a great step for humanity that will benefit all of us how??
That's not an incomplete statement; that's an exasperated question (with
two question marks) you want me to answer, and it's a bit of a loaded one at that. Who said that a new technology has to "benefit all of us"? It's kind of a ridiculous demand and arguably, virtually nothing hits this benchmark as what could possibly benefit ALL people at once with zero adverse effects to anyone?
AI benefits society by making knowledge, expertise, and powerful tools more accessible. It can improve healthcare, education, scientific research, accessibility, productivity, and public safety. But AI is a multiplier, not an
automatic good. It can amplify human ability and opportunity, or mistakes, inequality, and abuse, depending on how responsibly it's developed and used.
That is something that needs to have an answer before we risk everything (and pay for the pleasure) to continue pursuing it.
It's already been answered. If you want a really thorough answer, ask a generative, predictive AI LLM.
I need no special knowledge to make that statement safely.
You might not need
special knowledge, but it wouldn't hurt your case, and you
do need general knowledge about AI, LLMs, and their capabilities and impact. More importantly, how would you propose we regulate AI like this without causing any economic fall-out, stifling the private sector, fall behind globally to countries with fewer or smarter AI restrictions, and basically move forward with technology while avoiding economic collapse brought on by potential instability from new disruptive technologies like LLMs? The subject is too complex and the cat is already well out of that bag.
ps... shoes with arches are worse for you than bare feet, depending on variables I suppose, stay off the cement. I am not arguing the logic sucked however...
Making simple comparisons often does an injustice to a complex situation with multiple views to consider. It's easy to do. I'm not saying I have all the answers either, and AI certainly poses various moral and ethical challenges, as well as questions about copyright and infringement. Like the military, religion, fire arms, or drugs, AI can be used for both good and bad. It can save people's lives and wreck others. Some regulations are appropriate, but too much restriction can cause some serious problems.
(see what I did there?)
Either way, one love!
