Asklemmy

44380 readers

1617 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

What is the legitimate use-case for generative AI? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 4 days ago by B1naryB0t@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

103 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I promise this question is asked in good faith. I do not currently see the point of generative AI and I want to understand why there's hype. There are ethical concerns but we'll ignore ethics for the question.

In creative works like writing or art, it feels soulless and poor quality. In programming at best it's a shortcut to avoid deeper learning, at worst it spits out garbage code that you spend more time debugging than if you had just written it by yourself.

When I see AI ads directed towards individuals the selling point is convenience. But I would feel robbed of the human experience using AI in place of human interaction.

So what's the point of it all?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] nairui@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

To win a competition isn’t speaking to the purpose of art really, whose purpose is for communication. AI has nothing to communicate and approximates a mish mash of its dataset to mimic to great success the things it’s seen, but is ultimately meaningless in intention. It would be a disservice to muddy the art and writing out in the world created by and for human beings with a desire to communicate with algorithmic outputs with no discernible purpose.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 hours ago

I feel like the indistinguishability implied by this undercuts the communicative properties of the human art, no? I suppose AI might not be able to make a coherent Banksy, but not every artist is Banksy.

If you can't tell if something was made by Unstable or Rutkowski, isn't it fair to say either neither work has soul (or a message), or both must?