"Machines, artificial intelligences (AI), can now produce creative works such as art, language, and gameplay so impressive that they are occasionally indistinguishable from the creative works of skilled humans. Despite this indistinguishability, many of us still have the intuition that an AI's creative work is less valuable than the creative work of a human. Are those of us who devalue AI works simply misguided anthropocentrists, unjustly biased against the machine and ignoring value in the world? I think we are anthropocentric but not misguided."
"Imagine that you are standing before two perceptually indistinguishable canvases. As it stands, you have no reason to value one over the other, there are no visible or material differences between them. That is, until the curator informs you that they have distinct origins: the work on the left RedH, was made by a human, while the work on the right RedAI, was made by an image generator, an artificial intelligence."
AI systems can generate art, language, and gameplay that often appears indistinguishable from work by skilled humans. Many people nevertheless intuitively devalue AI-generated creative outputs. Such devaluation can stem from the claim that current AI creativity is inferior to human creativity. A Danto-style thought experiment contrasts two perceptually identical canvases, one made by a human and one by an AI, provoking different valuations once origins are revealed. Psychological evidence indicates people tend to devalue machine-produced artworks. The proposed reason for devaluation focuses on AI's limited originality, lack of genuine intentionality, and weaker contextual or meaningful engagement compared with humans. This reasoning could extend beyond art to scientific theories and mathematical proofs.
Read at Apaonline
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]