| > This post and others uses a lot of flowery language to point out that we train artificial neural networks and real neural networks in different ways. OK, great. I don't think anyone is saying that's not true. What I am saying is that it's irrelevant Maybe I was too aulic. The point is: you don't train "your artificial intelligence", because you're not an artificial intelligence, you train your whole self, that is a system, a very complex system. So you can think in terms of "I don't like death, I don't want to display death" You can learn how to paint using your feet, if you have no hands. You can be blind and still paint and enjoy it! An AI cannot think of "not displaying death" in someone's face, not even if you command it to do it, because it doesn't mean anything, out of context. > Jackson Pollock Jackson Pollock is the classic example to explain the concept: of course you can make the same paintings Jackson Pollock made. But you'll never be Jackson Pollock, because that trick works only the first time, if you are a pioneer. If you create something that look like Pollock, everybody will tell you "oh... it reminds of Jackson Pollock..." and no one will say "HOW ORIGINAL!" Like no one can ever be Armstrong again, land on the Moon and say "A small step for man (etc etc)" Pollock happened, you can of course copy Pollock, but nobody copies Pollock not because it's hard, but because it's cheap AF So it's the premise that is wrong: you are not training, you are learning. They are very different concepts. AIs (if we wanna define the "intelligent") are currently just very complex copy machines trained on copyrighted material. Remove the copyrighted material and their output would be much less than unimpressive (probably a mix of very boring and very ugly). Remove the ability to watch copyrighted material from people and some of them will come up with an original piece of art. It happened many times throughout history. |