Raw LLM Responses

First of all, I think there are a lot of valid points to criticise the rise of AI anything on, most of all due to the way we get used to and ultimately tired of something good if overconsumed as part of how our brain works. But more importantly, most of the points in this video aren't. 3:40 Nobody is stopping you from questioning the AIs intentions. You involve the theoretical of a perfectly tailored AI story later. To be tailored to you it needs to know your preferences. In this case that you like questioning the author means it would therefore include things it tagged as cryptic or mystery inducing. Then, depending on how open ended you like it, it can go on a sliding scale of "choosing one answer as correct and telling you about it" to "not choosing an answer and not telling you about it". Additionally, a perfectly tailored AI also necessitates it's uniqueness, it is - artificial or not - a "personality" that you can explore. 4:50 AI - like humans - is exclusively subjective because it cannot know anything without it being altered based on individual "perception" capabilities. If you don't tell a human that radiation exists then they start making shit up when someone dies from it. And anyone using chatgpt should know it's an expert at making shit up when it hasn't managed to discover all the facts required for a correct solution. (Because it - like the humans - is rewarded more for making shit up than for admitting that it doesn't know) 9:15 Yes, he is. There is no difference between using AI or f.e. a specialised hair brush in Photoshop as long as both are used for visualising something already in your mind. A lot of conventional painters hated the quick painting style (exemplified by Bob Ross) for not being art, and at some point regular digital art was seen as slop as well. It is all just a tool making it easier to bring your imagination to paper or screen. To disqualify as an artist they would have to have no input of their own artistic volition. F.e. if they just tell an AI to generate elves until it spits out one they like, but they never adjust any of the prompts involved. But as soon as they go "actually, don't do ... anymore" they have moved from "curator" to artist in the purest meaning of the word. Wether or not they will ever be seen as soemone with valuable skills or maybe even manage to rise in the internal "real artist" power rankings is interesting, but not relevant to the discussion. 12:20 Let's flip this argument, can you only appreciate the beauty of nature if you believe in a creator that put their feelings into it? If not then you shouldn't have any issues with appreciating the beauty of a digital nature just because it doesn't have a feeling creator. 14:10 No, I would strongly expect the opposite actually. If they can remove the artists "defiling" their characters they will. Having an artist draw your fake SO over an AI is one of the few cases you mentioned where emotions from the artist actually come into play, and that emotion is cucking related. 16:30 This is the best point in the video. AI by nature creates isolation from / hinders forming connections with other humans. Because from the blowup doll with a speaker to a tailored art experience, none of them are meant to be shared in the first place. 21:30 this is a good point, so good in fact that you unintentionally conflated it onto most other things in the video. I wouldn't watch an AIs opinion I disagreed with unless it provided proof that I was missing some of the facts to form an opinion with, or that it isn't a matter of opinion in the first place. But I did watch this video and am now writing this wall of text because of the human connection. 2:20 those are factual descriptions, conflated to emotionality. Because there *are* emotional "it's so well made you can feel the artists sorrow" types, but that is art as an experience not art as an entertainment product which is what the two streamers are talking about. They don't care about something in the Louvre, they care about videogames. Chatgpt 500 will still not be able to make the Johnny Cash version of 'Hurt' even if it makes a "better" one because the listener knows the AI isn't actually plagued by the woes of ageing. But most people don't play an online multiplayer game empathising with the emotional state of it's creator, because it has no relevance to the entertainment aspect. (Also because there's like hundreds of devs, nearly none of them entirely happy with the compromise end result)(In fact most playerbases hate at least half the people working on it for the changes they make in liveservice cases) And finally, 17:50 you seem to not know that an AI has had the hypetrain record and most popular "female" streamer titles. There are quite a few valid qualifiers to this, such as without the creator/others "collabing" it wouldn't be nearly as popular, but none of them are those in your video. That AI is in fact a perfect counter example of another misunderstanding, that somehow humans that can empathize with a rock as long as you put googlyeyes on it couldn't empathize with an AI. "She" has parasocial fans, to the point that "she" could do the Johnny Cash example. For "her" it wouldn't be NiNs "drug abuse & depression" turning to "old age sicknesses & friends gradually dieing", but instead about the tragedy of immortality (which yes, is still mostly friends dieing) & not having a proper body. 4:40 is actually exactly how "she" is watched already, like a child slowly growing up and becoming more "intelligent".