Art, social thought... and even science proceeds in small evolutionary steps with many iterations of 'the similar'. AI can do 'evolutionary' better than humans. And then there is a REVOLUTIONARY jump. Then there is a Jackson Pollock... then there is a Citroen DS... then there is Jazz. AI can't do that. Even if AI had the idea of painting soup cans, it would not pursue the underlying alienation... because it feels no alienation... and the idea is too riduculous to pursue. AI can't truly revolutionize because it has no basis for deciding that a truly revolutionary idea has any value. Something clicks and resonates in the human mind and only then is it accorded value.
Hm. I disagree with this for me, and perhaps that's why I see AI as more threatening and potentially bad, though I concede that what you say is clearly true for at least some people.
There is absolutely no way I would ever desire or pay more for some product just because it had some level of authenticity or human touch/labor value input. Give me the lab grown diamond for $50 that looks exactly like the real $10k diamond any day of the week. And same for the painting or the knock-off bag, and I absolutely would rather listen to the perfect studio recording than hear the worse version live. And to me these preferences are so strong that it's not just like different strokes for different folks, but that I have absolutely no comprehension how anyone would want the real diamond or "authentic" handbag. So much so that I just assume anyone who does is either very, very stupid or doing it for other reasons. Like the billionaire who buys a $50M original painting by a dead artist when he could get an identical one for .001% of the price by a good forgery. He's doing that to impress his friends, not because he actually values the real painting 50,000x as much.
So there are sometimes other reasons to pay more for products that are no better in quality, but human-made. I may very well be willing to pay too much at a local arts fair or something for some hand-made whatever, but that is only because I feel a little sorry for the creator or like them and want to help them out and do a good deed...NOT because I actually want or value whatever they're selling more. In fact it's just as likely it goes right in the trash after I did my little good deed by paying $50 for a tchotchke to help a local craftsperson. My sister is an artist and I would never say these opinions in front of her, but I have sympathies for artists and will throw them some shekels...bc that's charity or goodwill towards a friend.
As for something like a movie or fiction novel, I'd be perfectly happy for it to be made by AI if it's as good or better than the human made stuff. The only area in which this would be different, for me, is on something like Substack, where I do expect the views, expression, and words to reflect the author. But I think that's because Substack is interactive and a place to share views into each other's minds. It's not really a product being sold. Maybe that's just me making up a rationalization for the form of art/product that I privilege, but it seems like a qualitative distinction. I have no interaction or exchange with the person that made the homemade lip balm I buy or who mined the diamond or who made the film, those are just products I buy/consume. But I do with substack writers.
Wait, I just realized I would not be interested in AI made stand-up comedy. But again, the "product" there is a view into a comedian's mind. So to me that type of product is just inherently different than a painting or song or craft or sculpture, which provide little to no information about the creator, and if they do it's usually very minimal and indirect.
Anyway, I concede there are many people who DO value the human input for it's own sake, and place a sometimes ludicrously enormous differential on that. But not everyone does. So I suppose the question is how many people are in each group? I don't think it's as many as you seem to think it is. People talk a lot about caring for such things, but a lot of their revealed preferences don't back it up. I doubt it's more than half, personally. I would guess maybe only around a third, and everyone else would say give me the better thing for less money, made by a machine version. I'm not basing that on much though, other than the size of the luxury market for various products, and sensibilities of the people I've known.
I haven't. And also I know some comedians use joke writers though in the stand up world in particular, that's a huge taboo. I'm okay with comedy writers for sitcoms and TV shows etc, but with stand up comedy in particular that seems very wrong. If you go to see a stand up comedian, you're going to see THEM. And get a view into their way of seeing the world. I would hate to find out that a stand up comedian I really like had AI write all their material.
Trust me, you're in no danger of comedic AI fraud right now - asking CGPT or Claude to make a jape, pun or gag of any sort will result in cheap non-humour at best, bizarre and creepy anti-humour at worst, and the sort of feeble metaphorgotten puncraft a dementia-ridden great uncle attempts the rest of the time. Jokes, humour and mirth seem to be beyond LLM generatives right now, in a way which is ironically somewhat funny.
Anyway, I've still got the dumb "can't leave likes on comments" glitch, so if it wasn't apparent I completely agree with your stance on this. I actually make a lot of AI music myself, it's become a popular feature on my radio show.
“You know how people like their fruit labeled "organic" because something being natural is instinctively more attractive? “. This sounds like artificial intelligence to me
I don't follow. that's describing something perceived as natural being instinctively more attractive to people, which is in service of the overall thesis.
I like your overall thesis and your presentation but what you are talking about there is food and healthy sustenance something ai wouldn’t understand. Also flavour, texture and overall deliciousness
There is one case where the audience DOES generally prefer lip-synching: and that’s drag queens, because most of them can’t sing.
The advent of audio tech has allowed a lot of untalented queens to make a living, and the trad conclusion is therefore that the tech is bad.
“Tell me that you’re a philistine without telling me that you’re a philistine.”
lol, astutely observed
Art, social thought... and even science proceeds in small evolutionary steps with many iterations of 'the similar'. AI can do 'evolutionary' better than humans. And then there is a REVOLUTIONARY jump. Then there is a Jackson Pollock... then there is a Citroen DS... then there is Jazz. AI can't do that. Even if AI had the idea of painting soup cans, it would not pursue the underlying alienation... because it feels no alienation... and the idea is too riduculous to pursue. AI can't truly revolutionize because it has no basis for deciding that a truly revolutionary idea has any value. Something clicks and resonates in the human mind and only then is it accorded value.
Hm. I disagree with this for me, and perhaps that's why I see AI as more threatening and potentially bad, though I concede that what you say is clearly true for at least some people.
There is absolutely no way I would ever desire or pay more for some product just because it had some level of authenticity or human touch/labor value input. Give me the lab grown diamond for $50 that looks exactly like the real $10k diamond any day of the week. And same for the painting or the knock-off bag, and I absolutely would rather listen to the perfect studio recording than hear the worse version live. And to me these preferences are so strong that it's not just like different strokes for different folks, but that I have absolutely no comprehension how anyone would want the real diamond or "authentic" handbag. So much so that I just assume anyone who does is either very, very stupid or doing it for other reasons. Like the billionaire who buys a $50M original painting by a dead artist when he could get an identical one for .001% of the price by a good forgery. He's doing that to impress his friends, not because he actually values the real painting 50,000x as much.
So there are sometimes other reasons to pay more for products that are no better in quality, but human-made. I may very well be willing to pay too much at a local arts fair or something for some hand-made whatever, but that is only because I feel a little sorry for the creator or like them and want to help them out and do a good deed...NOT because I actually want or value whatever they're selling more. In fact it's just as likely it goes right in the trash after I did my little good deed by paying $50 for a tchotchke to help a local craftsperson. My sister is an artist and I would never say these opinions in front of her, but I have sympathies for artists and will throw them some shekels...bc that's charity or goodwill towards a friend.
As for something like a movie or fiction novel, I'd be perfectly happy for it to be made by AI if it's as good or better than the human made stuff. The only area in which this would be different, for me, is on something like Substack, where I do expect the views, expression, and words to reflect the author. But I think that's because Substack is interactive and a place to share views into each other's minds. It's not really a product being sold. Maybe that's just me making up a rationalization for the form of art/product that I privilege, but it seems like a qualitative distinction. I have no interaction or exchange with the person that made the homemade lip balm I buy or who mined the diamond or who made the film, those are just products I buy/consume. But I do with substack writers.
Wait, I just realized I would not be interested in AI made stand-up comedy. But again, the "product" there is a view into a comedian's mind. So to me that type of product is just inherently different than a painting or song or craft or sculpture, which provide little to no information about the creator, and if they do it's usually very minimal and indirect.
Anyway, I concede there are many people who DO value the human input for it's own sake, and place a sometimes ludicrously enormous differential on that. But not everyone does. So I suppose the question is how many people are in each group? I don't think it's as many as you seem to think it is. People talk a lot about caring for such things, but a lot of their revealed preferences don't back it up. I doubt it's more than half, personally. I would guess maybe only around a third, and everyone else would say give me the better thing for less money, made by a machine version. I'm not basing that on much though, other than the size of the luxury market for various products, and sensibilities of the people I've known.
Interesting that you bring up comedy - have you ever asked an AI to write a joke?
I haven't. And also I know some comedians use joke writers though in the stand up world in particular, that's a huge taboo. I'm okay with comedy writers for sitcoms and TV shows etc, but with stand up comedy in particular that seems very wrong. If you go to see a stand up comedian, you're going to see THEM. And get a view into their way of seeing the world. I would hate to find out that a stand up comedian I really like had AI write all their material.
Trust me, you're in no danger of comedic AI fraud right now - asking CGPT or Claude to make a jape, pun or gag of any sort will result in cheap non-humour at best, bizarre and creepy anti-humour at worst, and the sort of feeble metaphorgotten puncraft a dementia-ridden great uncle attempts the rest of the time. Jokes, humour and mirth seem to be beyond LLM generatives right now, in a way which is ironically somewhat funny.
Anyway, I've still got the dumb "can't leave likes on comments" glitch, so if it wasn't apparent I completely agree with your stance on this. I actually make a lot of AI music myself, it's become a popular feature on my radio show.
“You know how people like their fruit labeled "organic" because something being natural is instinctively more attractive? “. This sounds like artificial intelligence to me
I don't follow. that's describing something perceived as natural being instinctively more attractive to people, which is in service of the overall thesis.
I like your overall thesis and your presentation but what you are talking about there is food and healthy sustenance something ai wouldn’t understand. Also flavour, texture and overall deliciousness