By Athanu Biswas
Every day, AI will show you new magic. According to recent news, Paul McCartney and the late John Lennon will be reunited at AI Hogwarts. We used an AI algorithm to extract John Lennon’s voice from the demo track. However, some critics find it downright creepy to revive the voice of a dead artist. Among other negative opinions, they argue that an AI can never interpret his vocal performance with the same emotional nuances as a human performer. However, it can also be assumed that this is just the beginning of an avalanche.
Consider another generated AI avatar. German artist Boris Eldergsen won the Sony World Photography Award in April after admitting AI was used to create the winning black-and-white photo of two women from different generations. declined. Erdagsen said he would be interested to know if a contest would be prepared for AI imagery participation. As we can clearly see, they are not.
AI today can write an editorial or produce a novel in the style of a long-dead author. AI could therefore be used to complete the unfinished works of Charles Dickens and Ernest Hemingway. Innovative works of art like Van Gogh and Picasso and sculptures like Michelangelo and Rodin could soon be produced. Some research papers include AI tools such as ChatGPT as co-authors, which many scientific journal publishers have strict restrictions on.
All of these are different manifestations of generative AI technology, which Noam Chomsky and his co-authors, in an article in The New York Times, described as “a massive consumption of hundreds of terabytes of data for pattern matching and the most A cumbersome statistical engine that extrapolates highly likely data.” A conversational response, or the most likely answer to a scientific question. ” In fact, AI is adept at predicting what will happen next. Therefore, you must be good at deviating from conventional wisdom. In contrast, human intelligence “seeks to create explanations rather than infer crude correlations between data points.” Of course, human intelligence is not one-dimensional. Ignacio Matte Branco, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst from Chile in the 20th century, described both the functioning of the unconscious and the illogical elements of experience using bilogic, which explains it using logic. I tried to explain.
However, the coexistence of AI and human intelligence has suffered setbacks as a result of recent breakthroughs by AI tools such as ChatGPT and Midjourney. The “existential threat” posed by AI was also raised by Jeffrey Hinton, the godfather of AI. But according to another godfather, Yann LeCun, “Like any new technology, making AI secure will be an iterative process of improvement.” “I understand that” [AI] A little mistake can hurt people (like cars and planes), but humanity won’t go extinct. There is clearly disagreement among the Godfathers about the AI-driven future of humanity. No wonder ordinary people are puzzled.
Let’s compare Erdagsen’s experiment to the events described in David Brooks’ NYT essay “In the Age of AI, the Major in Being Human.” Brooks described an AI-generated piece of art that won first prize at his Colorado State fair last summer. At first it looked cool, but the next moment it felt kind of lifeless. “It lacks a human core. It lacks a life of personal passion, pain, longing, and deeply felt personal experience. It lies at the heart of the profound work of human creativity.” It is not born out of a certain human imagination, an outburst of insight, anxiety or joy,” Brooks wrote. Well, is this a fine line between human creativity and machine production?
The Moravec paradox, created by Hans Moravec and his colleagues in the 1980s, is important. “It’s relatively easy to get a computer to perform at an adult level on intelligence tests and checkers, but it’s hard or impossible to get a computer to have an adult level of skill.” ”
But while Erdagsen believes photography and AI image generation are not the same, he stresses that he does not believe the process of building AI images is dehumanizing or a threat to creativity. are doing. “One is writing with light, the other is writing with prompts. I have,” Erdagsen said.
Brooks identified unique human skills that AI can’t replicate, such as unique voices, presentation skills, childlike creative genius (Moravec’s paradox?), unusual worldviews, and empathy. “AI will probably provide us with great tools to help us outsource much of our current mental work. “Maybe the most important thing about AI is to show us what it can’t do, thereby revealing who we are and what we have to offer,” Brooks said. says. Is the logic of Mr. Brooks and Mr. Eldergsen tied by a common thread?
Is it still an inconclusive debate? The debate continues due to the fact that AI could have a life of its own.
The author is a professor of statistics at the Indian Institute of Statistics, Kolkata.
