Post AT2gllT1HrRBk9LJLs by JasonON@masto.ai
(DIR) More posts by JasonON@masto.ai
(DIR) Post #AT2ea2WFrUynFL8ZbE by TedUnderwood@sigmoid.social
2023-02-25T15:17:47Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
Anthropocentric Bias in the Appreciation of #AIart https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563223000584
(DIR) Post #AT2feT8awAUWukkL56 by amerika@noagendasocial.com
2023-02-25T15:29:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@TedUnderwood AI: every species in an ecosystem is importantHuman: ...and?AI: we have too many humans; the cull begins at the bottom by IQ and marshmallow test.
(DIR) Post #AT2gllT1HrRBk9LJLs by JasonON@masto.ai
2023-02-25T15:42:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@TedUnderwood I've seen AI art and some of it isn't bad. Most of it is very technical and "alien". Anthro-centric, or human generated, art is better in my opinion. Generally. There are still a lot of bad human artists, but art is, was and will always be in the eye of the beholder.
(DIR) Post #AT2gmMfMyuIj7APCEq by jeffjarvis@mastodon.social
2023-02-25T15:42:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@TedUnderwood "By seeing less creative value in, feeling less awe for, and showing lower preference to buy for AI-generated art, people inadvertently reveal theirneed to support anthropocentrism in the face of recent advances of AI that threaten the last fortress of human supremacy arguments, artistic creation."
(DIR) Post #AT2maybWhbxX1kYpJg by JesseSkinner@toot.cafe
2023-02-25T16:47:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@TedUnderwood just last night I was realising that the beauty I saw in this photo I accidently generated with #midjourney was the exact beauty intrinsic in nature itself. Not similar but in fact the exact same creative force in play.
(DIR) Post #AT4zzAQU5VXgMXBHeK by aaronhertzmann@fediscience.org
2023-02-26T18:27:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@TedUnderwood This paper begins with unsupported false premises that AI are artists or creative or independent from their users. Replace “artificial intelligence” in the text with the more-accurate term “computer software” to see how silly it is.
(DIR) Post #AT50U9KuBrVJxWLS9g by aaronhertzmann@fediscience.org
2023-02-26T18:32:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@TedUnderwood This paper begins with unsupported false premises that AI are artists or creative or independent from their users. Replace “artificial intelligence” in the text with the more-accurate term “computer software” to see how silly it is.The paper doesn't define what they mean by "AI." Do the authors even know anything about how these systems work? (They're in a business school.) Or have they completely swallowed the hype?A much better paper on this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004220307070
(DIR) Post #AT526U6pVNedLMbYPI by TedUnderwood@sigmoid.social
2023-02-26T18:50:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aaronhertzmann I'm interested in human behavior and don't care very much either way about the semantics of agency that get people worked up when the phrase "AI" is used. I would translate the paper as "when you tell viewers an image was 'created by AI' they value it less." That can be true whatever you believe about the real causal story of creation.
(DIR) Post #AT52RHxXsAitk8BM24 by TedUnderwood@sigmoid.social
2023-02-26T18:54:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@aaronhertzmann But thanks for the link to "Who gets credit?" I also found your own recent paper very interesting.
(DIR) Post #AT53mEusTvTCLBULOy by aaronhertzmann@fediscience.org
2023-02-26T19:09:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@TedUnderwood Thanks for the clarification, that makes sense. Not having studied their experiments in detail, it does seem like every aspect of their description is based on false/unsupported premises, so it may be hard to get much of value out of them.