How do you value Human vs AI content?
I can't find the article, but several years ago I read one about a basic point-and-click digital camera given to a couple amateurs and a couple professional photographers. The difference in outcome was astounding, with the professionals taking shots that would look at home in National Geographic and the amateurs taking shots that would look at home in a home album, perhaps.
Given the same base tool and opportunity, the obvious difference comes down to the application of experience and skill. However, now that cameras of all kinds have gotten better, that gap is closing as the digital algorithms applied by the software mimic many of the skills of the professional, so the amateur can get a similar result. However, it also depends on conditions, so the camera can't mimic things like being in the right place at the right time, nor getting the right angle of a shot, so there is still a difference.
However, while the quality of images has gone up, the value of photography has gone down, because the cost to take a good image has been radically reduced. It is not just the cost of equipment that has come down, but because of the coding, the cost of getting the skill required has also come down, because there is no need to actually experience many of the conditions, the camera simulates it for the photographer instead. Essentially, an image is taken by an out-of-body, photography cyborg, a partnership between human and machine.
While that is another topic to dive into later, this post is about the acquisition of skill and the devaluation of skills as they become easier and cheaper to acquire. Essentially, the easier a skill is to get, the less marketable value it has for those who have it, and the higher the level required becomes in order to give it value. Take kicking a football as an example; almost anyone can do it, but relatively few can earn from doing it.
In terms of photography for example, there are now millions of people on Instagram who claim themselves to be photographers or have an interest in it, even though they do not possess many of the skills required themselves. What this means is that while they might feel that they have a skill, they actually do not. You would not want these people to shoot your wedding photographs.
Applying this to the discussion to content created by AI, going back to the first paragraph and the camera example, what happens to content when all content is largely the same? The reason it is the same is because it is all largely coming from the same centralized algorithms and the cost to do so is very low, so there are going to be a lot of people putting in their terms and getting an output that is similar to a lot of other people. In fact, there is no need for the people at all, because an algorithm can create its own generative terms and have closed-loop, humanless content creation system.
However, what it is actually doing is feeding off what is already created and even though there are essentially an infinite amount of configurations, eventually without new material, it will run dry. Yet, for the human experience, this doesn't really matter, because we can't consume that much. It is similar to how humans can only see about 1 million different colors, yet develop screen qualities talking about 16 million variations. It is like making a song for humans, in sound frequencies only dogs can hear.
So, what gives content value, when everyone can cheaply create the same quality content?
This is a good question. But since we talked a little about music above, let's start there. Computer generated and assisted music has been around for decades, and tools like autotune (that twangy voice) have been fixing the skill of singers since 1996. However, while we might listen to a lot of computer generated music on the radio, would you pay to go to a concert of AI-generated music?
What about an exhibition of AI-generated artwork? Once? Twice? How many exhibitions would you go to, knowing that the images took literally seconds to generate and that all it was doing was doing was taking images from the internet, applying an algorithm to them to combine some kind of mathematical outputs into something visible?
Hmmm.
Perhaps there is value in humanness after all.
The value of skill isn't the output of the skill in most cases, it is the journey required to get the skill. And that journey is unique to the person experiencing it. Unless an AI has access to all conceivable data in my past, it cannot produce what I am producing now, in the same way I am producing it. This means that even if it does give the same output to the letter, the consumer given both versions would most likely value the one that has taken humanness applied to get the result. If they know that is.
Which takes us back to the music.
Why go to a concert if the studio recoding is better quality? Atmosphere? Sure. But there are also a couple of other things that quickly come to mind, with one of them being proof of human related. We want to experience the artist themselves and in so doing, show our support, put our time, money and effort behind them. Show them we appreciate their skill and by proxy, be part of their journey. It is a shared experience, not only with the rest of the crowd, but with the artist themselves. Would that shared experience feel the same listening to an AI perform a concert?
How much would you pay for tickets?
I paid €250 a ticket for my wife and I to go to see Adele live in concert in 2016. We made the trip to Sweden and stayed there a few nights in order to do it. Would we have paid the same to go and listen to a CD of her, while she sat there on stage? Would we pay that to go and listen to the CD of her? Would we pay that to go and listen to someone else sing her music? Would we pay that to go and listen to an AI sing music similarly to her?
The question isn't necessarily whether AI-generated art or music is art or music or not, it is more about what is the value of the output. And in general, what we value is going to be the journey, which only the human can take, even if the AI is drawing on the journeys of many humans, which they are. Similarly, it is with text, where we would feel cheated if we discovered what we thought was human-generated content, turned out to be AI-generated. The reason is that we actually value the human experience more than the mimicked experience of the AI, in the same way that an original painting is worth more than a print of that painting.
Whether it be art, music, video, photographs or text, if we have supported the content as if it was human created, we would feel cheated and swindled if it wasn't, because for the most part, we wouldn't ever support it at that level otherwise, because we value it less.
As said, the lower the bar to get a skill, the lower we value the output of that skill and like it or not, the artistic outputs of an AI is far, far lower in skill level than the equivalent outputs from a human. When an artist spends years getting the technical skills and building the experience to deliver a phenomenal painting, it is part of the shared experience that we have with the work, no matter if an AI can get the same output.
We don't want to go to a dance party and listen to a Spotify track list, we want a DJ to apply their skills. And this is where the human comes into it, because even if it is computer-assisted, we want to experience the application of the artist's unique journey and appreciate what has got them there, onto that stage, and into our minds and hearts. An artist isn't one image, or one song, they are just the outputs of their travel, their trip, like our own, that has propelled them forward into life to deliver something we value.
It is not about whether we can tell whether the output is human created or not, it is about us being able to assume that it is. Because if we assume otherwise, we will value it less, because it means that it wasn't difficult to accomplish, and we like the hero story, the ability to overcome adversity, because we can connect with it personally.
Acquiring a skill is a challenge and depending on the skill or level, not all can achieve it. And because of this, the law of economics comes into play and as we should know, in a world of abundance, scarcity still matters, it has value. While we wish that there was an abundance of food and opportunity for all, when it comes to the value of art, it is rarity that sets it apart, and AI generated anything means that it no longer is rare, it becomes a production line of mass produced outputs - cheap and disposable.
Perhaps at some point we will no longer care about whether something is scarce or not, but in a world where people believe that their unique identity is valuable because it is exclusive of others, but also groups them with others who share a particular journey, it might still be awhile away. However, we are lazy animals and love convenience, so we will likely speed the process to our own destruction, by taking the easy path and relying on the tools we create to get an output of professionals, even though we ourselves are unwilling to take the journey to actually become a professional ourselves.
I do think though, that unless entirely enslaved, human creativity that provides scarcity of experience will still get the bulk of the attention and, the value support. An AI can do a lot of things and fool a lot of people, but proof of human will become a thing and the unskilled, will not be able to compete with the skilled. Their only savior is that for now at least, there isn't the transparency of activity required, but in time, that web of trust will be able to provide clarity on who can really create, and who can only imitate the output.
When you look in the mirror of your content, do you see yourself?
If you do not, at some point, others will not care to see you at all.
You played yourself into a prison of irrelevance.
It is the journey that matters, not the destination.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
First off all, I think the way of the expression of the writer gives content value. Then the photos, designed or not and the title which is not ordinary.
All can be replicated by an AI, but at what point does the AI no longer seem human? At one point, people believed I was a bot because I was writing posts like this four or five times a day :)
In this case, I think the adminds of communities on HIVE could have a big responsibilty to accept new members and upvote their posts.
I think that many do. It still requires stake :)
Adele's concert is worth 250 euros!
It's one of those I'd like to see live sooner or later, I worked for a few years in the music world, I was a porter, I set up the sets, I was also an assistant to the sound engineer... there is humanity behind a concert , sweat feelings and emotions.
A concert made with a CD could not give all this.
The same goes for a work created by AI, be it a painting, a text or something else, they will always lack humanity which is currently the added value and what determines its price.
Maybe in 50 years it will be different, we will find out in the future, currently using AI and defining oneself as an artist, photographer or writer is in my opinion equivalent to cheating and defrauding others.
It definitely was. I tried to get normal tickets, but they soldout in seconds and all that was left was VIP, so I took them. Totally worth it.
And, so many people involved for each event. How many needed for an AI? Many seem to forget all the related services that would disappear and when they aren't needed, most jobs we do aren't required either.
When people are falling in love and marrying their pillows, it might not even take that long...
VIP tickets, the top for a concert... sometimes you can afford to splurge on these also because we're talking about very high levels.
I was lucky enough to see some concerts directly from the theater stage, really goosebumps emotions!
It was a splurge indeed! It was actually the last time we were able to travel together and my wife was five months pregnant. It was great!
This would be awesome :)
It seems to me that AI-generated content is devaluing human-generated content. Because a real content creator is creating the content using his brain power and hard work. It seems to me that human effort is not valued as much as that content is AI-generated content. Because they effortlessly bypass other content.
Human effort is valued, but it still has to compete with the AI content. If it isn't good enough, it doesn't get attention.
Very interesting post.
A.i can't and will Never beat human created contents because a.i doesn't feel.
You're as thought provoking as always.
Mass production has always made things faster, in larger volumes and taken the craftsmen out of the equation. Yet does the consumer really care in the end, as long as they get what they want? Seeing what some anime fans are attracted to, I even wonder if some people will pay large sums to see a concert of recorded music as long as there is an effigy of whatever idol has been created as the symbol of the AI that made it. I'm sure some show can be made on big screens to entertain the consumers.
There is a game called Atomic Heart that is currently gaining in popularity which has female robots in it. Everyone is waxing lyrical about these sexy robots. One wonders where we will be in the future. Will the next generation, knowing no different, even care about the human touch? 🤔
It depends on the consumer I think. It tends to be that those who can afford bespoke, pay premium for it. Exclusivity.
In terms of the anime fans - there is a project with an animated nude streamer that people pay to watch. A sad world. But at the end of the day, given the choice, would people pay for an animated partner, if they can have the real thing? It seems to be one of the problems with people no longer having the interpersonal skills to actually be attractive to others, so they settle for what will accept them as their unskilled selves.
I didn't realise it had already reached they point, but I shouldn't be surprised. We have hentai after all.
Or even the interpersonal skills to hold together a relationship if they can form one.
Usually computers and technology improves our lives doing the mundane tasks that we don't want to do, thus freeing us to do more activities that we want and enjoy.
But using tech and passing it off as your own work is deceptive and lazy.
I think Life is about the journey and not just the end result. Otherwise, why don't we just skip to death straight away. There was a great scene in the peaceful warrior film that emphasizes this exactly.
What happens when we start using the tools to do the tasks that we do want to do, but we are too lazy to learn how? I suspect - nothing good.
And in order to answer this question, one would have had to have lived long enough to understand the value of life - something an AI cannot comprehend yet. All it can do is draw on secondhand knowledge it trawls.
authors replaced by tech... Bots already can play splinterlands. I wonder if at some point AI will no longer need us.
I suspect that there may come a time where AI is good enough to be completely self-sufficient, even if it isn't sentient. It will just keep ticking along.
Congratulations @tarazkp! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 1320000 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out our last posts:
Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!
When I look at your photos, I look into many mirrors. I not only see a girl in a photo, however great the photo is, I also see you positioning yourself to capture it. I see the photographer is the girls father, and can feel the emotion and love between you. I see my own children when they were that age, swimming with their floaties on. I get to time travel back to their youth. AI can not generate all that understanding, and more no doubt.
I would probably not waste my time at an exhibit of AI generated art, precisely because there would be no human vibes in the work.
And this is the shared experience - we weren't in each other's lives at that point at all, yet here we are sharing memories still. Even if you had never said it, we still would have connected experiences.
This conversation and post has me aware of a kind of ether, of human consciousness, that connects each and every one of us with every human event ever, as if consciousness powers the whole world. Is AI conscious enough to power the world?
I think it is (will be), but it won't empower humanity, unless we design it to. It is functional - humanity is not.
What beautiful photos Mr. Taraz, of SmallSteps swimming and enjoying his walk with his family, there is an excellent backlight of the girl in that beautiful place, the yellow and blue colors of the natural light make those moments a very beautiful memory for you as a family...great and sweet images.🌺🌊🦋
It was a nice day. The summer seems so long ago, but spring is coming and it will return in a few months :)
I send you a cordial greeting from my land of the beloved son, here we are in summer 365 days a year, although, in the Andean mountain range, it is very cold and snowing, the climate in my country is good, and I appreciate it very much.
I hope you can organize a vacation in this tropic and enjoy the beaches of the Caribbean with SmallSteps and his wife, Mr.Taraz
It is clear AI will change some markets as click-and-shoot cameras did when they appeared. The same thing applies to web development. In the early days, web creators were charging quite a bit to create a website, now there are tons of online services offering you no-coding solutions to create a website, the result is almost no web is impactful anymore, and when you see one that has been developed by creatives it stands out of the rest.
Many other industries will change as AI starts entering into different areas, but it will also be an opportunity for real professionals to stand out of the crowd.
Yes. but what has also happened is the web has become functional in terms of the websites. They are just there to serve content - no one is looking at the website itself. Well, few are looking. It is an interesting development. I guess when books were first introduced, people wondered at their construction, but now it is what is inside that counts.
Issac Asimov explored these boundaries a long time back, especially in the I,Robot. 1942 first, then in 1950 the collection. Most of the people, remember the movie perhaps. Below is the iconic scene when Sunny asks: "Can you?"
The answer is obviously no. No we can't. Most of us can. But what Asimov perhaps didn't explore much. It is our imperfections, our inabilities to excel in multiple things, makes us individuals, makes us human! When I was a kid in competitive Indian social and educational scene, I tried my best to become good, better than the next guy. Later in my life, now, I actually learned to like my imperfections, and imperfections of the next guy. Makes life worth it.
They become our competitive advantage in a sense, because they add to our random result, often positively. Perfection doesn't exist, but with an AI ruler, it would stall development as if it has reached the end.
btw - I don't think I have seen the movie. My dad was a huge Asimov (and sci-fi book) fan in general.
Go see the movie! Netflix has it I think. It narrates "ghost in the machine“ speech verbatim
I will have a looksee :)
This is the kind of debate that arises whenever a new technology comes by around the corner. I remember the debate about photography and paintings. It took a long time for photography to be considered a form of art just because it wasn't a human thing. Then, it became clear than taking good photos requires a lot of work and the whole paradigm began to change.
With AI, I see a similar picture. It won't be easy to determine the exact point of value. Sure proof of human is still the main factor for the value of art, but until what stage. AI keeps growing and learning. Maybe in a few years it will be able to replicate everything. Could there be a way to separate everything made by humans and machines? Would we hit this point in which every art will have to become a performance art? That would be the way to have that proof of human.
It is certainly an interesting debate.
I am not certain. But, once it is no longer needed, we are lost as a species. All of us become irrelevant immediately. This might be what we deserve of course :)
I suspect more and more this will be the case.
Poor writers. They will need to spice up their writing game. I don't know how but making it a show will be in demand.
Well, it seems our duty is to become wires. Or that was what I saw in some AI-generated art.
Starting with a personality I guess. People are people, they are not their content - yet many think that is all it takes.
Sure. That is until we become redundant.
:D :D
Exactly. But think of it this way - is it better to be redundant with a personality, or without? Sure, we might not make much money, but we will do well down at the pub ;D
😂😂😂
Well, that's certainly an interesting point. Maybe it will be like this run of the X-Men where humans have fuses with machines and are on the verge of assimilation by an interstellar conglomerate race called the Phalanx. So it might not even be a point in pubs. 😂
Well, it’s tough, see. Cuz I agree, the difficulty in producing a photo has dropped as the equipment improved. But the ‘literacy’ still lacks.
It’s like all this crypto & tech. It’s redefining technology, code and finance, but some of us are still no more knowledgeable in the task than before.
I wouldn’t say that AI itself is an issue, but it’s the application that defines it. Similar to the debate around guns.
Sure, guns kill people, says one side. The other responds, no, people kill people. They’re using the guns to do so.
So what will people use Ai for? Some might have them write a 500 word article. I met students who knew others using it to write their assignments. I’ve asked AI how I can clean my shower floors.
All depends on how you play it, just like any game is. Thing about a game, though, nobody likes cheaters.
Like any game, it depends on how it is played for sure. The true creatives won't be using it to replace their skills, they will be using it to enhance their growing set of skills. Having a clean shower is important - if only for when you bring a date home ;)
This is an insightful post that you have written about Human vs AI. I think you summed it up well that it's the journey that matters and not the destination. I feel that everyone has a different acceptance/comfort level when it comes to AI, which is relatively new concept. Some embrace it while some detest it. I guess the community will have to find the equilibrium at some point.
I think most people don't truly think deeply enough on what it means for them. It has a massive knock-on effect on every industry, as when it replaces the people in one, it means that all the services that provide for those people and companies, are no longer needed. In time, those get replaced by AI too anyway.
Our ability to be human is the last thing we have left as a competitive advantage.
I think AI-driven posts are a cop-out, but I am happy for people to use AI to add a bit extra to their work.
In my case, I write all my content from scratch for @kalavia, but I do use an AI-art generator to create fitting pictures to the story and the card game concepts.
Original art would be far superior, but by using AI in this way I can direct my focus mostly on the writing :).
I do not think AI-storywriting will work well for complex storylines btw. as I do not trust it to create a consistent fantasy plot environment ;).
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I have no issue with people using AI, it is the issue that they are saying that it is theirs because they plugged in some keywords. It is lame.
For now at least. But, look at how most movies have degraded in plot and dialogue - it is only possible because the consumer has learned to accept inferior, because they have been trained to focus on the look and feel of the film, the CGI.
Ultimately, the value of human versus AI content depends on the specific goals and needs of the content creator and the audience they are trying to reach. In some cases, a combination of both human and AI-generated content may be the most effective approach, as each type of content has its own strengths and weaknesses.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
A combination will likely yield the best results, but in what areas will the human be better?
sorry for the late reply sir. In my opinion, Humans can't be neglected or pushed aside when it comes to this battle of Humans and AI. I mean the AI are being used by humans ultimately , afterall they can't use themselves.
That being said humans are better in areas that require creativity, emotional intelligence, judgment, humor, and ethical considerations unlike AI that solely excel in areas that require speed, accuracy, and processing large amounts of data.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
People get heated about all this because of the value of time.
You paid €250 to see Adele live in concert, because she gave three hours of her time exclusively to those in concert hall.
Similarly, if someone spends a couple of hours researching an article so that it has some unique info it it, they're going to be miffed if they get paid the same or less than someone using AI.
On the curation side, giving 50% of the reward pool to curators was justified by the idea that the curator would spend hours reading before finding posts worthy of an upvote. The autobots which upvote without reading are also draining the reward pool - but because some big whales use them, the issue is swept under the carpet.
And inevitably that leads to some people saying, why waste time writing when the curation bots won't read it and you can't get on someone's auto-curation list in the first place?
IMO, things started to go wrong when automatic voting started.
And, she gave a lifetime of rehearsal and life to be able to produce something worth watching for three hours :)
I am not sure when you started here, but voting bots have been around since almost day 1 in 2016. They aren't new. Also, they aren't that bad, depending on who is using them. Most of the whales these days have an idea of where their votes are going, most of the time.
I agree with you entirely and that's what makes us unique, we all have had a completely difference set of circumstances, lessons, thoughts, ideas, ideals, locations etc etc from birth to now and what annoys me most about this whole AI thing is that the people that are ok with this are not even recognizing your last paragraph and what it means
This is what Facebook became! A place where people were being so dishonest about who they are and what they portray that it is all becoming irrelevant. Instagram is following suit as well. The people who are giving up their own place in the world to let AI do their writing (or whatever else) are the idiots that are going to ask "How did this happen?" when they get laid off in preference of a robot doing their work instead.
And, this is driven by the platforms too, where they are promoting content that gets clicks. But, with all the bots, who is actually reading the advertisements, who is clicking? It becomes a playground for bots that are blind, and advertisers who will wake up and stop advertising - then the whole model of centralized social media collapses.
Read how this all have started with Toruk
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
And thank you again :)
It's hard but it reminds me of a video that I watched earlier today and it was about AI generated art. To build the AI generated content, it has to create the basis for it off something else and I don't think most people have agreed to doing anything like that. Depending on the type of video, people also get mixed responses but I did notice one thing on the pro-AI side that saying that technology improving is good. The costs of photos have gone down due to technology and I still think that is a good thing. But it makes you wonder just what should be acceptable or not.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
What happened to cultural appropriation, when the AIs are literally stealing the artistic styles of famous artists? :D
We are on the way to be enslaved in the names of good enough and cost reduction.
Human is becoming a niche on this path.
The truth is that you are right, with so much technology emulating the quality that previously took professionals and artists of various fields many years to acquire, skills have been considerably devalued. A voice synthesizer now replaces someone who with talent and determination makes an effort for years to sing well; someone with a high-end smartphone of the latest generation can take a picture of the same quality (or quite close) to that taken by a professional with many courses and years of experience in photography.
And just like those there are thousands of other examples, but the human factor is essential for us humans to maintain interest in something. Artificial Intelligence has a convenience value, in the sense that it can produce results in a very short time, that is, it can efficiently achieve what would take many years for normal people to achieve, but what it does not have is that personalized sense, that sense of connection that makes humans relate in a special, unique and authentic way.
When it comes to AI-generated content, I wouldn't value an AI-generated article in the same way as one written by a person; because it would always end up giving more value to the one written by a human directly. Because it is essential for me to understand that whoever wrote something that I am reading has a life experience, a learning experience, a way of thinking, and that this something that forms part their life story and has value for that person.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Exactly. The technology is great and amazing, but at the same time - how much of it do I want to see or experience? It has zero cost to make - so why pay for it?
If you check the tool named - arthub, you'd notice that the tool has been made for the art generation which is basically picking up on existing images. I feel that copying other writes and turning the digital art with manipulation is not art. I mean turning the actress in instagram into black and white and the making a bit bad to look like an AI attempt is in poor taste. Tons of artists suffered due to this on deviantart. I mean it's like going broke if AI then really starts to draw which would happen in few years.
It won't be long until it is creating its own styles, but given the sheer volume it can create, what is the value?
I just want to start with your post has been educative to me, I really appreciate your ending remark as well as this,
The truth is AI can't really produce what humans will do, due to lack of emotions and the ability to produce something new, they can only copy what has already been done and try to mix up some but still it won't match up with what a productive human would do, indeed AI are good but without a skilled human using it, it's still kinda the same as not having such if compared to skilled user, so the margin still remains.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Very few humans have skills that match the current AIs, let alone those to come.
The feeling that comes after creating something good with your own hands is priceless. So are thoughts. When the entire text is written, it is re-read, corrected where necessary, and finished with a period. After this point, the magic happens. No AI will ever experience it. I believe in energy. Consequently, the consumer will not get that energy at the other end. When everything seems to be fine, but something is missing...
And it doesn't matter sometimes how well written or photographed or done. I embraced that energy. I felt the potential. I'll come back here again. I'll see how much this person can improve or repeat it. And more often than not, I'm not wrong. And I will come back again and again.
You described it correctly. Because all the pain and the blood and the tears and the sweat is right there. Collected through the years in a ball of this unique energy...
That was just my addition, which you didn't touch on, in my opinion.
Thank you for this great read!
!PIZZA
I completely agree. Yet, people seem to be getting conditioned to be pure consumers, never creators. They get the sense of accomplishment from doing useless tasks on social media or in gaming, yet creating nothing of any substance. Eventually, some will wake up and will realize they missed living.
My father was a painter and an art teacher, from the age of 16 to 82. He was an artist before that age too, but he had to keep it secret, because it was not an acceptable career according to his dad. His art encapsulated a life of hardship, war, suffering - as well as confusion, joy and love. I can pick one of his pieces from a mile away.
Wow, that's a very strong word! 🔥🔥🔥
!invest_vote
@stdd denkt du hast ein Vote durch @investinthefutur verdient!
@stdd thinks you have earned a vote of @investinthefutur !
PIZZA Holders sent $PIZZA tips in this post's comments:
@stdd(1/10) tipped @tarazkp (x1)
Please vote for pizza.witness!
With the music example you anticipated me :D
in 2000s everybody was a DJ thanks to VirtualDJ
In 2010s everybody was a photo-shooter thanks to cellphone
in 2020s everybody is a coach/motivational speaker thanks to many pre-written books.
I agree that AI can overcome some boundaries, but from I found until now, AI is quite superficial AND quite repetitive (for the moment). So I think that commenting, asking questions about real perspectives and so on, can make everyone see if the author was really involved into the text creation or not.
Yep - and it sia very good indicator of plagiarism throughout the years too :)
I'd like to apologize if I did not read the whole content but I wanted to comment on what I had in mind the moment I read the title.
I am a self-taught graphic designer and a graduate of information technology. So it is not very unusual for someone like me to not notice great changes that are happening on the internet. With tech being tremendously developing and changing over time, a lot of information and tools are being distributed by the minute. And it includes websites that can replace work done by humans.
AI are great and impressive, but the recent developments in AI got me thinking. In the past weeks, it came to my attention that you can easily make a blog or some article with just a few clicks. Same with logos and photo editing which I think is the most popular today.
And with that said, I know that AI is the future but how far should it influence humans workflow and daily lifestyle?
Hey, no worries. You might also be interested in reading the post I wrote earlier about AI usage on Hive more specifically.
https://peakd.com/hive-167922/@tarazkp/ai-earning-and-learning-on-hive
Once we replace our skillset with AI but do not add human specific skills, we are largely valueless to society. So, then what?
It is already happening - people are making themselves irrelevant. Kids at uni writing essays using chatGTP. No longer they are putting in effort to learn skills, they are taking the easy route. Or game developers punching in lines of text to create art to be used in games because it saves them time and money. I wish it was true that people valued things that took time and experience to create more, but in corpo environment and not even corpo but that is the cleanest example, we see over and over how little humans matter to them. What matters to these flesh eating ghouls is power and money.
Instead of using AI to enhance our human experiences, we are slowly but surely becoming tools to add inputs for AI.
People think they are getting freedom from using the tools, yet they are enslaving themselves and caging themselves away from everything they might value in later life - from fulfilling work, to fulfilling relationships. They will be users only.
Can't say for sure. From one hand i can say that i'm glad that we have achieved such level of progress to create us helpers you know, and from other hands, i can't say that these so called helpers can do the same as humans with right accuracy you know. Yes i can use AI to help me when i need to write some things for my medical study, like nurses case studies but the same thing i can say for people, as i frequently go to professionals for help. I think that AI is still evolving and it still can fully replace humans you know, but it has some value in my opinion
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
AI has a lot of value - it doesn't mean it is going to not be costly for us. Most people are going to find themselves unable to have a job, because all they learned can be done by an AI.
My feedback to AI vs Humans discussion:
People are feeling lazy to scroll in google and wanna know only one opinion presented by chatGtp. Censorship in chatgtp exist. It's same like utube shorts. People will try to censor information till the Doomsday!
At this point I wouldn't pay to go to any concert, at least of the mainstream genres.
You know, Billy Eilish's producer, the talented Finneas, posting with pride recently, boasting about his music production skills by showing an audio clip of one of the lines in Billy's music. It was cut up some insane number of times, in the 50's. Meaning, for a single line of vocals, it was a mixbag of 50 splices of recordings, cherry picking the best microseconds and gluing them together to make one cohesive line.
What you hear in recordings now, were never actually sung by anybody.
Another clip I saw was just some instagram short, memeing about the joys of 'movie night' back in the day, exploring blockbuster, having a proper night out just finding the right tape or DVD, going home, watching together etc. That joy has disappeared now, as people just put 'whatever' netflix has on the front page on while scrolling one's phone.
I think a lot of elements in life, such as photography, has had all the joy sapped out of it with its excess supply to the common person such as us.
There's not much left to truly appreciate in a developed nation
There's no AI yet, it's only data processing. Chewing and spewing more of the same. New creations requires original thought. And it's the surprise, the really creative stuff that matters in content. It doesn't matter if More Of The Same is done by humans or bots. They're both functioning like bots in this regard. What's the point of human involvement if it felt bot-made?
That's almost everything there is. The precise moment. The personal message. It's not only about saying correct words in correct grammar and in beautiful handwriting. It's about what you say.
Value is in the message that touches the soul of the audience. I would value an original work by an AI.
AIn't no AI yet. We have just lowered the bar.
Ah, I remember this was a hot debate during the transition from film to digital photography, especially when DSLRs finally eclipsed 35mm film in resolution sometime around 2015, which was when I made the video below haha. (Ignore the youthful looks and exuberance - I'm old and wrinkly now 😂)
I think AI has it's place as a tool. I see AI (like ChatGPT for instance) the same way as I see a Google search box (which has been AI this whole time by the way), and I treat it as such. I use it to create outlines, quick comparisons between two products, summarise articles so I don't have to read 10 pages, e.t.c. It also makes errors at the moment, but I'm sure that will improve over time.
By the way, I suspect AI played a little role in these photos of your little one? There's an AI'esque feel to it. 😂 - I can't remember if you mentioned it in the article and I missed it. I have the mind of a goldfish now haha.