• Adalast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    It is a humanist perspective. We feel uneasy about it because it is something that we thought was ours and maybe a couple of other animals.

    In abstraction (boiling the idea down to the most basic form it can be stated), something that is not a human learned from our art to do it as well as we can. What the something is is borderline immaterial.

    (being really careful not to strawman with this) If we select a description of something else that is doing the learning and see if it leaves an uneasy feeling. Maybe a bacterial colony was genetically engineered to have a sort of memory that allowed them to remember images that the colony had been on in the past and when exposed to a disorganized pigment environment, they would redistribute the pigment into a pattern similar to the images they had experienced previously. So scientists culture billions of bacteria and print off tens of thousands of images then expose the colony en mass to them. Now the colony can recreate many many art forms.

    Is that the same, better, or worse than a computer? On one hand, the computer method gives access to everyone. There are profiteers, but there are also FOSS solutions that do not harvest data or transmit your personal info home. With the bacteria example, the spread may be smaller and slower, but you better believe that every major publisher and marketing firm would be lining up to purchase the Bactereo-5000 printer that could replace their entire art department the same as many are doing with Stable Diffusion.