No, because they're putting the work and time in. They are not using a computer to enhance their abilities. They are not cheating.
I'm highly agitated because you're being nasty. I'm trying to have a grown up discussion about art.The stones refuse to engage with it but grow highly agitated just thinking about it.
And also, stones are cool. There's stones around today that have existed longer than I have been alive.The stones refuse to engage with it but grow highly agitated just thinking about it.
I'm guessing you hand carve all your works in stone with a rock and chisel, then. Oh wait, that chisel would be a tool...
I use a feather quill thank you very much.I'm guessing you hand carve all your works in stone with a rock and chisel, then. Oh wait, that chisel would be a tool...
Goose or swan?
Eagle.
Not if you get to keep the golden fiddle.....
Damn you. I tried to walk away, but you've sucked me back in...
This is demonstrably false. I have a painting and a photograph in front of me and I am comparing them. They are definitely not the same. I am comparing them nonetheless
What is writing? Text is just a medium for communicating thought. When we "write", we imagine up things and write them down, so we can communicate those things, our imagination, to others.
Johnny beats the devil on his own merit. In fact, it's the devil who needs assistance to make himself sound better.
Alright a lot to break down here:This is demonstrably false. I have a painting and a photograph in front of me and I am comparing them. They are definitely not the same. I am comparing them nonetheless
What is writing? Text is just a medium for communicating thought. When we "write", we imagine up things and write them down, so we can communicate those things, our imagination, to others.
Now there are two components in play here:
- the form: as in, the language used, the shaping of the letters (for hand written manuscripts for example), the typography in general, the word choices, expressions used, how descriptive the text is. This can enhance the work and it can spark the reader's imagination, but ultimately it is just form. It can also reduce the enjoyment value of a work, by making it hard to read, dry, unimaginative.. which is why "AI written" stories feel so bad at times.
- and the substance: our thoughts, our imagination, our fantasies
plot, characters, setting, theme, symbolism, dialogues, pacing, conflicts, resolutions, descriptions, foreshadowing, suspense, tone - these are not parts of the text. these are conveyed by the text
The AI can generate the text that conveys these thoughts, but it is you who has to prompt the AI to generate them in the first place, or you who has to browse various options it has generated until you find the right one to express what you want.
How is that different from mixing colors until I find the right one for the sunset? Its just an act of finding the right form to express my thoughts, my ideas.
The emphasis is on MY.
MY STORY. Not the AI's. That it was not necessarily me coming up with all the words that convey the story would not make it any less mine.
Sure it is arguably a different form of art, than pure writing. Just as running is not the same sport as cycling, even though the underlying goal is the same: to test the endurance of the human body over a specific, predetermined distance.
While you can ask ChatGPT to write a random children's tale for your boy or girl and it will do an acceptable job doing it (especially given the abysmal standards of our age in that regard), it has a snowball's chance in hell to create anything even remotely close to a complex story.
Even if you put hundreds of hours into prompting it.
It is literally easier to write most of the story on your own and only ask it for minor help with expressions or synonyms, than to try and get it to write a coherent story.
It's not writing. The ai is the one doing all the work and you are simply editing.
It's remarkably easy:
That's from your post, verbatim, minus the note about captcha. Certainly isn't a complete work - it isn't 500 words as specified and cuts off mid-sentence - but for a couple seconds of 'work' it isn't bad. I don't believe I would say I wrote that, or that you did.
As a matter of fact, it's like you "commission" the ai to make what you want and you survey the result and decide if you like it or not. Similar to how the di Medici family commissioned Fillipo Brunelleshi to build the cathedral of Florence. The di Medici's paid for it, but they didn't build it. It was a joint effort, but Brunelleshi is credited for building it.
As the rays of the morning sun painted golden hues across the pavement, a single mother and her daughter embarked on a path towards the nearby bus station; anticipation and excitement danced in their eyes.
Hmm if you say so. It's not to my tastes, but I've seen worse out of humans. And by all accounts it's only going to get better.
I never said, that a writer's style has no effect on their art. I however stand by my opinion, that text it just the medium to convey that art. Such as the colorful shapes would be on a canvas are the words on a sheet of paper. In themselves, they mean little. Together, in a particular composition, they can evoke feeling and carry meaning.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree. But again, I could not disagree with you more. Your translator analogy is terrible because a translator is human being who knows that certain words carry different meaning. An ai is a machine that needs a person to tell it what to say and then check to see if it did a good job. In fact Google translator is terrible at communicating local idioms, figures of speech ect.I never said, that a writer's style has no effect on their art. I however stand by my opinion, that text it just the medium to convey that art. Such as the colorful shapes would be on a canvas are the words on a sheet of paper. In themselves, they mean little. Together, in a particular composition, they can evoke feeling and carry meaning.
Hemingway's intense, emotional moments are not in his words. Its his thoughts that are conveyed through his words. That is why you can read the Bible in 100+ different languages and get the same intense feelings from it, as it is not the individual words that carry the value, but the meaning they convey when you read them.
I have read books in multiple languages. Some in 3 different ones. I got the same feelings every time. Some were slightly better in conveying the original intent of the author, some were slightly worse. Heck, I had cases, where the translator was a better wordsmith than the original author and managed to paint a more vivid picture. Was Tolkien's Hobbit the translator's work then? Just because it was his words that conveyed Tolkien's ideas to me? Of course not, and also in a sense yes.
The moment he wrote that story down in his own words (which he had to do as it was a translation), he added some of his own to it. It wasn't Tolkien telling me what's in his imagination anymore, it was the translator, who has read Tolkien's work, internalized his ideas and vision and did his best to recreate it in his own language. It just so happens, he did a slightly better job than Tolkien did. (truth be told, the translator was a very well respected author himself, so he was more than equipped for the task)
Actually, this is a genius analogy, I do not know why it didn't occur to me before. See, I could probably write a lot better in my own native language than in English (lots of reasons, besides the point). I could then ask a translator to translate that work to English and publish the translation. I would of course have to credit the translator, but would I not be credited as the author? Would it not be me who would be applauded for the creativity, the thought, the ideas? Of course it would be me.
Now, how is that different from the AI translating my thoughts to a language? It is not. It is only different because there is an ongoing psychosis / hysteria surrounding the AI. It will pass, things will normalize and everyone will live happily ever after
Then again, to cut this lengthy discussion short:
Art (/ɑːt/)
noun
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
I rest my case - mike drop.
Also, art is subjective. Your Google definition is cute, but I disagree.I never said, that a writer's style has no effect on their art. I however stand by my opinion, that text it just the medium to convey that art. Such as the colorful shapes would be on a canvas are the words on a sheet of paper. In themselves, they mean little. Together, in a particular composition, they can evoke feeling and carry meaning.
Hemingway's intense, emotional moments are not in his words. Its his thoughts that are conveyed through his words. That is why you can read the Bible in 100+ different languages and get the same intense feelings from it, as it is not the individual words that carry the value, but the meaning they convey when you read them.
I have read books in multiple languages. Some in 3 different ones. I got the same feelings every time. Some were slightly better in conveying the original intent of the author, some were slightly worse. Heck, I had cases, where the translator was a better wordsmith than the original author and managed to paint a more vivid picture. Was Tolkien's Hobbit the translator's work then? Just because it was his words that conveyed Tolkien's ideas to me? Of course not, and also in a sense yes.
The moment he wrote that story down in his own words (which he had to do as it was a translation), he added some of his own to it. It wasn't Tolkien telling me what's in his imagination anymore, it was the translator, who has read Tolkien's work, internalized his ideas and vision and did his best to recreate it in his own language. It just so happens, he did a slightly better job than Tolkien did. (truth be told, the translator was a very well respected author himself, so he was more than equipped for the task)
Actually, this is a genius analogy, I do not know why it didn't occur to me before. See, I could probably write a lot better in my own native language than in English (lots of reasons, besides the point). I could then ask a translator to translate that work to English and publish the translation. I would of course have to credit the translator, but would I not be credited as the author? Would it not be me who would be applauded for the creativity, the thought, the ideas? Of course it would be me.
Now, how is that different from the AI translating my thoughts to a language? It is not. It is only different because there is an ongoing psychosis / hysteria surrounding the AI. It will pass, things will normalize and everyone will live happily ever after
Then again, to cut this lengthy discussion short:
Art (/ɑːt/)
noun
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
I rest my case - mike drop.
Try again to do what? Repeat the same argument? You seem to have ignored everything I said.
This why I said we're going to have to agree to disagree. We've reached an impasse. We don't even agree what art is, so I don't think we're going to be able to discuss AI and it's implications. You say AI generated content is art because a human is behind the machine, but I say it's not because the machine is doing the work. And the work in general is based on other human artistic efforts. So here's where I shake your hand and tell you to have a nice life.
