Hmm. Tricky. I feel both negative and positive about it. And honestly I was more thrown by the gynaecologist reference in a previous note than today’s AI chat. I think it’s both scary and exciting at the same time, but the AI responses felt shallow, generic and less meaningful than a human conversation. I wonder what perspective I would have, had I not known it was a conversation with AI... would I have found the responses more thought provoking and genuine?
I agree with how flat the Ai can sound. But the ability with interacting with basically all of contemporary human knowledge through natural language is quite wonderful, and I’m learning that I can do a lot to steer the ‘quality’ of the conversation, I was being careful and measured here, knowing I would share it in public. Ultimately I think we can get all kinds of outcomes from this too, and I think that’s art!
I agree with Emily about both the AI chat and the gynecologist analogy. In terms of AI, I lean more neutral-negative than negative or violent opposition. Ultimately, the AI portion of the chat was (and I really dislike this word) boring, but that probably because I was imposing my prejudice that robots can’t have the same passion about why they create as humans. That drive to create is what connects us to other human artists.
What I appreciate though is how the Ai is a useful tool to ‘create’ my portion of the chat. The fact is good thinking is playing both sides of the conversation, like good chess practice is playing both sides of the board, I think the value here is in what human created, which is the point.
I don’t think “Ai Art” is a thing it’s human art made with Ai as a tool. Labeling the tool intelligence is a slight of hand that is fooling the world
Hmm. Tricky. I feel both negative and positive about it. And honestly I was more thrown by the gynaecologist reference in a previous note than today’s AI chat. I think it’s both scary and exciting at the same time, but the AI responses felt shallow, generic and less meaningful than a human conversation. I wonder what perspective I would have, had I not known it was a conversation with AI... would I have found the responses more thought provoking and genuine?
I agree with how flat the Ai can sound. But the ability with interacting with basically all of contemporary human knowledge through natural language is quite wonderful, and I’m learning that I can do a lot to steer the ‘quality’ of the conversation, I was being careful and measured here, knowing I would share it in public. Ultimately I think we can get all kinds of outcomes from this too, and I think that’s art!
I agree with Emily about both the AI chat and the gynecologist analogy. In terms of AI, I lean more neutral-negative than negative or violent opposition. Ultimately, the AI portion of the chat was (and I really dislike this word) boring, but that probably because I was imposing my prejudice that robots can’t have the same passion about why they create as humans. That drive to create is what connects us to other human artists.
What I appreciate though is how the Ai is a useful tool to ‘create’ my portion of the chat. The fact is good thinking is playing both sides of the conversation, like good chess practice is playing both sides of the board, I think the value here is in what human created, which is the point.
I don’t think “Ai Art” is a thing it’s human art made with Ai as a tool. Labeling the tool intelligence is a slight of hand that is fooling the world