If two images are pixel-for-pixel the same, then their use is the same. I don’t appreciate calling me stupid just because I don’t believe there is a metaphysical quality to a .png taken with a camera that looks the exact same as an AI generated output, especially if it’s for something as mundane as getting across an idea like “office worker eats corncob while laughing.” Plus, I already told you, I don’t personally use it because I don’t have a use for it.
I was not trying to call you stupid, but apologies regardless.
My point was meant to be that the self-perception of human cognition is changed through the use of AI systems, in such a way that one believes them to be able to replace human cognition.
As for the pixel-perfect recreation, I entertained that idea as a pure hypothetical, but it’s not something these systems are actually capable of, and they never will be.
Isn’t that argument fundamentally based on the user misanalyzing the use-case of AI, and what it can and cannot do? The article you linked argued for clearly understanding AI, its limits, etc, not rejecting it dogmatically in all cases.
As for pixel-perfect recreation, AI is improving, and will continue to improve whether or not you or I approve. The hypothetical is important because it reveals something about use-value.
So, as I said right from the beginning, the upshot is: using AI images for a banner instead of literally anything else sends the message to community members that the admins/mods do not value human cognitive and creative work differently from Markov chains or diffusion models.
The fact that you think that AI can create the equivalent of any human output means you yourself are a cognitive casualty of AI
If two images are pixel-for-pixel the same, then their use is the same. I don’t appreciate calling me stupid just because I don’t believe there is a metaphysical quality to a .png taken with a camera that looks the exact same as an AI generated output, especially if it’s for something as mundane as getting across an idea like “office worker eats corncob while laughing.” Plus, I already told you, I don’t personally use it because I don’t have a use for it.
I was not trying to call you stupid, but apologies regardless.
My point was meant to be that the self-perception of human cognition is changed through the use of AI systems, in such a way that one believes them to be able to replace human cognition.
As for the pixel-perfect recreation, I entertained that idea as a pure hypothetical, but it’s not something these systems are actually capable of, and they never will be.
Isn’t that argument fundamentally based on the user misanalyzing the use-case of AI, and what it can and cannot do? The article you linked argued for clearly understanding AI, its limits, etc, not rejecting it dogmatically in all cases.
As for pixel-perfect recreation, AI is improving, and will continue to improve whether or not you or I approve. The hypothetical is important because it reveals something about use-value.
So, as I said right from the beginning, the upshot is: using AI images for a banner instead of literally anything else sends the message to community members that the admins/mods do not value human cognitive and creative work differently from Markov chains or diffusion models.