Тарас, [11/17/2024 11:50 AM]
analyze the following comments and think critically, whose position is more logical, truthful? 
1: We literally just read about AI imitatinf the personal details so well that the artist thought he drew it himself. It might be time to stop with this idea that there's some sort of magic element to drawing that no machine could ever replicate.

2, responding to 1: while this is true, we undoubtedly will need robust ai regulation in the future.

I agree, there is no 'soul' anywhere, not in human art and not in ai art. because souls do not exist. there was a blind [study ](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-76900-1) very recently on rating various high quality poetry, and people preferred not the real human poetry but ai generated poetry, while preserving negative bias towards ai and calling real poetry incoherent ai mess. 

we need a future where this powerful technology is used responsibly and benefits humanity, making our lives easier and more enjoyable

3, responding to 2: Eh, are u arguing metaphorically or scientifically? 

Whats ur point with souls don’t exist? 

Scientifically of course they don’t exist but i don’t think that is what the comment above was getting at. 

The specific mention above is that the image copying Van Gogh could do so perfectly and even make an objectively better image. However the AI would never never be able to live the life Van Gogh did which informed his art never have the experience which led him to create his art. 

This is what the comment meant by “soulless” 

As to what you are saying, i don’t think many average individuals really have TASTE to determine what real art is and don’t even get started with poetry. 

I would only find merit in the study if we took serious poetry critics and fans at the highest level .001%  and asked them. And even then it really has no meaning. Rick Rubin might pick 8 winners but he also could pick 3 losers. 

Ultimately it has always been the tastemakers who determine if art is good or not. You can walk into a museum and cry because you see a banana taped to a wall or some black dots on a blank canvas and argue that isn’t “art”. And i’m sure AI could generate something severally superior to it. However sometime somewhere at some point someone grave credence to the art that was being created. 

That is what allowed that art to be good. Not photorealism or stylistic perfection - but a real person making real art.  This is the “SOUL” 

examine someone like playboy carti who is at the top of music. I personally think his music sounds almost objectively egregiously horrendous. However, the discourse puts him as one of the trendsetters in the music industry today and even I can’t deny the love i have for music.

That being said ur point isn’t moot. AI is scary for several reasons. And we should regulate HEAVILY. Just felt like you glazed over much nuance.
Also you equated calling something “soulless” which metaphorically means that something does not have human experience expressed with the scientific fact that souls do not exist.

2, responding to 3: if I understood you correctly, "soul" essentially means "backstory". thats an interesting point, and ai obviously doesn't have that in the traditional sense of understanding it, but I don't think that backstory necessarily makes art better. after all, art is very, very subjective. I like your example of banana taped to a wall lol, it shows that primary purpose of art is to cause emotional response, and it doesn't matter if it came from a human, ai, nature(think snowflakes), or idk, fucking toaster that somehow toasted the toast to ever so slightly resemble Jesus(I think you know the story). 

and regarding the point about the study, yes, I agree that commoners do not have 'good taste' in art, meaning they are not proficient enough, the study mentions it as an important point. but think where those ai models were even 2 years ago - that was true, absolute garbage. think gpt 2 for example. that wasn't that long ago, and current models outperform it so much it's genuinely crazy.

Тарас, [11/17/2024 11:50 AM]
so, my point here is, do we really doubt that in no time even experts won't distinguish between ai generated and real poems? to me it's a matter of years. 

I hope ai discourse stays productive like that in the future too, without screaming "ai is absolutely evil!!!" or "ai is absolutely good!!!". we as humanity need to, as always, think critically and maximize the benefits of it, while minimizing harm.