Wagner James Au / New World Notes

Loading…

Here's a survey on how much generative AI will change important parts of human culture, inspired by a debate posted last week. In case you missed it, read the different perspectives below here:

• How Artificial Intelligence May Change Metaverse Platforms.
• How AI May Change Movies and Music. 

Roughly summarized, one argument suggests AI will totally remake our conception of movies and other culture, replacing many or most creative humans along the way. Another argument suggests AI will become just one tool, much like programs like Photoshop did in previous years — and humans will still be central to creating culture.

Read the debate summary after the break, take the survey, and expand the conversation in Comments below!

Pictured: Barbenheimer meme created through generative AI programs Midjourney and Gen-2 

For the "nominal" change argument:

Grandiose predictions around AI have consistently been proven wrong and there’s still no evidence that’s going to change any time soon, especially around human expression. 

The SAG strike was actually doing the studios a favor, because there’s no proof that consumers actually want to pay for AI-only content. 

Gen AI may become an important tech tool like Photoshop and Maya before it, and that’s great, but there’s no reason to think it’ll substantially supplant the culture we cherish. 

More key, no technology is inevitable. Humans ultimately control it, and humans can collectively decide to control gen AI’s abuses, as is already starting to happen. And any AI prediction which discounts concerted human action is destined to fail.

For the "radical" change argument:

To take the side of the robots; every grandiose AI prediction to take, has been premature. Not wrong.

Futurists like Asimov have been speculating for a long time what shape that takes; I'd say their biggest mistake was predicting we'd be replacing physical labor, before intellectual labor.

There is nothing special about the human mind – we're a collection of neurons and chemicals. The idea that algorithms running in squishy meat cannot run in silicon requires a real act of faith. The idea that robot creativity cannot match human creativity requires similar faith.

So, to me, the argument from the position of human supremacy rings hollow — what matters is the output If you cannot distinguish between work produced by a human, or work produced by a machine – is there a distinction? Does the distinction even matter?

Read the rest here.