RE: How do you value Human vs AI content?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
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. 😂