✳flâneur — a map of the web's best reading

Sorry Ted Chiang, humans aren't very original either

theintrinsicperspective.com · 1,684 words · saved by 1 readers

At the end of August acclaimed sci-fi author Ted Chiang published an essay “Why A.I. Isn’t Going to Make Art” in The New Yorker. Chiang’s argument, that AI mimics what’s already online and therefore must necessarily be unoriginal, led to a huge amount of discussion, receiving millions of views, getting to the top of Hacker News, triggering rebuttals in The Atlantic, etc. Yet, was Chiang’s essay itself really that different from what had already been written online? I question this because (a) I’ve read similar points before, and (b) I’ve even written similar things. First, let me give a précis of his argument in full, which goes like this: (i) AI artistic decisions lack “intentionality” (a hallmark of consciousness, or subjective experience). Since art is fundamentally about communicating experiences and intentions, AI art is an illusion, because AI (presumably) lacks consciousness and intentionality. (ii) This also has an effect on the technical quality of AI art itself, since AI is f

Sorry Ted Chiang, humans aren't very original either But our margins are still slightly better than AI Erik Hoel Sep 17, 2024 249 62 44 Share Art for The Intrinsic Perspective is by Alexander Naughton At the end of August acclaimed sci-fi author Ted Chiang published an essay “ Why A.I. Isn’t Going to Make Art ” in The New Yorker. Chiang’s argument, that AI mimics what’s already online and therefore must necessarily be unoriginal, led to a huge amount of discussion, receiving millions of views , getting to the top of Hacker News , triggering rebuttals in The Atlantic , etc. Yet, was Chiang’s es

Explore this link on the map →

related reading