• glibg10b@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    Making art and writing just happens to be easy to automate with neural networks and machine learning, neither of which was originally researched for the purpose of replacing artists and writers.

    Good luck disassembling a ship with a neural network. And maybe do some research about the difficulties of application-specific robotics.

    • Risk@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      Define art, though.

      As it stands neural networks and LLMs can’t do it, because they lack imagination. A human can use it as tool to make art though, and we don’t have these silly kinds of conversations about photoshop (anymore!).

      As for the OP, you’ve taken it a bit more literally and reacted a bit more defensively than I think is warranted. The point is about our systems priorities, not so much the specifics.

      • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        I have a feeling if we performed a lobotomy-like surgery on someone that eliminated their imagination and told them to just put paint on a canvas, you’d still call that art.

        I would, at least. There’s some subjectivity to the definition of art and what people think has artistic value.

        • Risk@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Of course. That’s the point; it’s subjective, and yet we have people declaring that AI/LLM output isn’t art.

          I miss when Lemmings actually replied why they were downvoting…