I actually have, AI generated photos can take similar roles as stock photos, or other such visual imagery valued more for its informational basis than artistic. There are other uses.
But they don’t do the same thing, because one is an image of reality and the other is the output of a stochastic process. One is communicating something, the other is effectively a typed sentence with a whole bunch of noise attached
It has little to no effect on the outcome, in this hypothetical. The way the conclusion came to be is different, but are you making an argument that the outcome is different on the ideal plane or something?
If you use a small hammer, you can hammer a nail in.
If you use a big hammer, you can hammer a nail in.
Hypothetically, the person buying the nailed-together wood will see no difference.
But for the worker, using the larger hammer will have caused a different physical change in their hammer-wielding arm, versus if they had used the smaller hammer.
Sure, depending on which tool you use for a job, there is a different process of working. Some nails and materials work better with bigger hammers, some are fine with smaller hammers. The process of coming up with equivalent end-products while reducing labor-time and reducing injury is a part of improving the productivity of labor, which can, in socialism, be used to provide what people need while minimizing working hours.
So you agree that it is materially different for the person using the AI, great, you had been arguing against that for hours.
Now, if an AI is meant to replace or automate cognitive/decision-making processes, then would you reckon that the effect on the user would be more like a musculoskeletal change, like in the hammer example, or more like a mental change (keep in mind that the brain is a material thing too)?
No, I did not argue against the idea that different tools are used differently to produce similar results. This is another strawman, something you seem fond of.
As for AI, if it’s image generation, the user puts in a prompt and evaluates whether or not the output fits what they want, then adjusts. In the case of, say, a texture of wood for a game, this is pretty simple, does it fit or not? If it’s for summarizing, generating names, etc it isn’t a substitute for cognition, and can actively backfire like what can happen if someone asks AI to spit out code that ends up being buggy. Just because you can use AI to do something doesn’t mean it’s the optimal way.
I actually have, AI generated photos can take similar roles as stock photos, or other such visual imagery valued more for its informational basis than artistic. There are other uses.
But they don’t do the same thing, because one is an image of reality and the other is the output of a stochastic process. One is communicating something, the other is effectively a typed sentence with a whole bunch of noise attached
If you couldn’t tell the difference between the two, in what manner is the utility different?
That is entirely hypothetical, but i will go along with your thought experiment:
It makes a difference to the person using the AI system. The two situations are materially different. How can that not have an effect?
It has little to no effect on the outcome, in this hypothetical. The way the conclusion came to be is different, but are you making an argument that the outcome is different on the ideal plane or something?
If you use a small hammer, you can hammer a nail in.
If you use a big hammer, you can hammer a nail in.
Hypothetically, the person buying the nailed-together wood will see no difference.
But for the worker, using the larger hammer will have caused a different physical change in their hammer-wielding arm, versus if they had used the smaller hammer.
Or do you disagree
Sure, depending on which tool you use for a job, there is a different process of working. Some nails and materials work better with bigger hammers, some are fine with smaller hammers. The process of coming up with equivalent end-products while reducing labor-time and reducing injury is a part of improving the productivity of labor, which can, in socialism, be used to provide what people need while minimizing working hours.
So you agree that it is materially different for the person using the AI, great, you had been arguing against that for hours.
Now, if an AI is meant to replace or automate cognitive/decision-making processes, then would you reckon that the effect on the user would be more like a musculoskeletal change, like in the hammer example, or more like a mental change (keep in mind that the brain is a material thing too)?
No, I did not argue against the idea that different tools are used differently to produce similar results. This is another strawman, something you seem fond of.
As for AI, if it’s image generation, the user puts in a prompt and evaluates whether or not the output fits what they want, then adjusts. In the case of, say, a texture of wood for a game, this is pretty simple, does it fit or not? If it’s for summarizing, generating names, etc it isn’t a substitute for cognition, and can actively backfire like what can happen if someone asks AI to spit out code that ends up being buggy. Just because you can use AI to do something doesn’t mean it’s the optimal way.