Rongnongno Loc: FL

Some here are giving in to the 'AI' controversy', if there is such a thing.

Firstly, let's make a strong distinction between computer assisted design and computer created product.
- The original computer design was AutoCAD, remember that one? It created a wire mesh of objects, humans, whatever, then the mesh was covered by another to finally create an apparent 3D object. It was also decried, especially by engineers. Now they not only adopted it but made it their main tool. Nothing today is created w/o AutoCAD and its successors.
That was/is computer aided design CAD.
- Computer created products simply do not exist. Please do not try to divert this by citing 3D printing (any scale) or robotics. Not one computer today really creates anything the moment a human gives instruction to a computer to give substance to an idea or concept, it is computer aided, like it or not.
The moment a computer decides by itself to create something, eliminating human intervention*, then we will be dealing with AI. This is not the case.

So far, I do not see where the controversy is. It is simply nonsense.

Now, how about art?
What is the difference between using a computer or a paintbrush or whatever tool comes to mind? Well, none. One is clean, the rest not so much. One is 'effortless' the others? Ouch. One can be done anywhere, the others are not that transportable, try moving a couple of ton rock to work with while traveling... A computer on the other hand will help create a model... Not create the final object.
Art as usual and always will be the domain of personal taste, $$$ interest and nothing else.

'AI' in photography?
It is just another tool given a new name because it attracts users toward a revamped set of instruction to remove, add, modify objects in a digital image that is really a capture of electrons to create pixels that in turn, as an array, assembled into an 'image'. There is no 'AI' here, just a more precise, more intuitive program in order to create a better result from an existing array of pixels (the image). Adobe** and other software companies who claim 'AI' are just promoting a fake 'AI'. The real intelligence here is that of the programmers, then of the marketing gurus, who have found yet another way to sell the programmer's work and sell.

Are 'AI creations' photographs? No, same as AutoCAD while they allow to create images these are constructs, today's 'golem'; humans are the (insane) wizards 'master's.

So let's ask again:
- Are AI images art? Yes.
- Are 'AI' images created photographs? No.
- Do you have to like 'AI' or hate it? No.
- Will you like 'AI', hate it, or ignore it? Up to you.

AI is just another freaking tool!!! It is as good or as bad as the human (drone) decides...

------------
* Human intervention... I already see the tin foil heads fuming and going to interject 'what about'? Every time a computer intervenes in anything, it is due to a programmer work that gave instructions to a computer in specific conditions. There is no 'AI' saying 'I think, therefore I am' or asking 'to be or not to be'.
** Remember 'smart objects'? The greatest since... Well nothing. That marketing line was squashed once it was discovered folks did not like PS CC 'smart object' default when opening a new image... (The default was the real change!!! Smart objects were obscure until then).

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Yup, they are simply pre-programmed to analyze a certain way and respond to the conditions.

ELNikkor

Oh

smf85 Loc: Freeport, IL

We’ll said.

We are quite some distance from a real AI; let alone something that is truly self aware.

The most likely opportunity for an AI system to be developed and implemented is in a space probe. Here the objective is to create something that will perform a mission with as little human interaction as possible. It’s designed to be able to cope with the unexpected; to self correct errors; to work around failures; to complete the mission by itself. Eventually they’ll come to the point where a machine will simply be built and sent on in its way and the results to the experiments will simply be returned.

Still, even that machine will not be self aware. That will simply happen one day.

tramsey Loc: Texas

So what you are saying it's going to be a while before I say 'Scotty beam me up' and something happens? Still another disappointment

Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast

With computers, it’s always been; “Garbage In, Garbage Out”….same with AI nonsense.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

I do not disagree with this.

AI generated image seem to look like art created in the eighties/nineties using airbrushing. (You just made me think of this analogy, right or wrong)

Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast

The output is only as good as the input OR the person inputting the data…Cheers

Peterfiore Loc: Where DR goes south

Wordsmiths will do fine with AI. The visual artist's issue is they generally are not word people.

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

Are you sure?
You might be interested in the following article,
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/05/ai-makes-st-up.php
which describes two instances that refute your contention:
1. ChatGPT was asked to write an essay on the oldest and youngest governors of South Dakota. ChatGPT produced an article with factual content about the oldest governor, and completely fabricated a youngest governor, complete with phony portrait.
2. A plaintiff attorney in New York relied on ChatGPT to write his brief opposing a motion to dismiss his case. ChatGPT provided him with an impressively detailed document, citing multiple cases, and providing quotations from each case and citations to each case. All of which were completely made up. The defense attorneys researched his brief, and tipped off the judge about the falsifications. The judge issued a scathing "Order to show cause why plaintiff’s counsel ought not be sanctioned," providing details of each instance of fabrication, which can be read here:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.31.0.pdf

Rongnongno Loc: FL

And?
All this is faulty programming, not the result of artificial intelligence. Hence, the errors (cases that never existed).

We need to stop 'projecting'.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

Well there is certainly something faulty in the programming that has such a result. But if it allows a computer to completely make things up that don't exist, in expert fashion, as opposed to specifically instructing the computer to do so, does this not imply some type of "intelligence"? Independent decision-making?

As a follow-up to my post above, the plaintiff attorney filed a response to the judge's order:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.32.1_1.pdf
wherein he admits to using ChatGPT for the first time, and that he asked ChatGPT to confirm the veracity of its report.

ChatGPT reportedly responded “Upon double-checking, I found the case Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co. Ltd., 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir. 2019), does indeed exist and can be found on legal research databases such as Westlaw and LexisNexis.” Which is completely false.

This appears to be a computer fabricating falsehoods on its own.
In the case of the South Dakota governors report, deciding on its own to report factually about one governor, and completely make up the second. You think it was programmed to do this? Or lacked programming to prevent it?

This is hardly "projecting."

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

VIKI and Sonny are AI.
They thought for themselves.

Even "You also might be interested in ...." suggestions are run by a program.

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

This valadates Rongnongno comnents, poor coding.