The AI does not possess those attributes. It’s behaving as told. It has no experience. It has no senses. It has no thoughts or ability to reason. It has no motivation.
Could we not - for the sake of argument here - surmise that, since these AIs need prompts, and usually a few rounds of refinement, and then a selection for uploading to (in this case) YouTube, that the -human- in charge of prompting/refinement/uploading has a point of view, an opinion, an aesthetic preference, emotions?
After all, there are artists that collate "samples" from other artists and produce music from all those different samples. They did not play any instrument, they merely arranged and modified these samples into a product that they presumably find pleasing.
The only way we can make that assumption is if the -human- makes it obvious. Tell me the people mass producing AI slop for YouTube/Spotify are approaching this with sincere intent.
It’s not even told, it continues a text (or denoises an image) in a way that closely resembles what was in the training data. Experience, senses, thoughts, reasoning and motivation were all there in original human- and nature-produced data. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43003186
Doesn’t mean the result is ideal, far from that. But your “bullet points” imply some specialness which has to be explained. Personally I don’t love the style of refusal you’re demonstrating, because it’s similar to if you know you know and other self-referential nonsense. At least add some becauses into your arguments, because “it has no X” is a simplification far below the level of usefulness here.
Anyway, how does that prevent creating AI personas again?
After all, there are artists that collate "samples" from other artists and produce music from all those different samples. They did not play any instrument, they merely arranged and modified these samples into a product that they presumably find pleasing.