Comment on Jack Dorsey Releases Vine Reboot Where AI Content Is Banned

• Chronographs@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Whether AI art is good is subjective, it will change based on the whims of who you ask and cannot be defined. Whether something is AI generated depends on what definition you use but given a definition it either fits it or it doesn’t. It’s not subjective it’s just a little broad. As far as it being hard to detect that has no bearing on whether it is or isn’t AI.

  source

  • jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Whether something is AI generated depends on what definition you use

    I am so sorry, I don’t mean to be terse, but; We must speak a different English because this is the actual fucking dictionary definition of “subjective” :

    4
    a(1)
    : peculiar to a particular individual : personal
    subjective judgments
    (2)
    : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background
    a subjective account of the incident
    b
    : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli
    subjective sensations
    c
    : arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes
    a subjective symptom of disease
    compare objective sense 2c
    

    THEREFORE, ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING:

    Whether something is AI generated [or not, sic] depends on what definition you use…

    MIGHT BE…

    Whether something is AI generated or not is subjective.

    Regardless,

    Yeah I’m basically ignoring the part of implementing it as a separate issue from defining it, which is the part I’m saying is objective. Given a definition of what type of content they want to ban you should be able to figure out whether something you’re going to post is allowed or not, that’s why I’m saying it’s not subjective.

    You summed up the problem with your own semantic definitions and viewpoints earlier pretty well. What you’re basically saying is there could exist a model that defines and filters AI content based on a subjective definition of genAI, which no shit sherlock - that’s fucking trivial and can be said about anything. There could exist a model that subjectively defines unicorns and filters them out of all content too. Doesn’t mean it’s actually useful to anybody or that there’s any practical reason to build it, though.

    You’re just talking past @chrash0@lemmy.world who’s trying to point out to you that actually defining what constitutes genAI content is the hard part. You’re being obtuse and intentionally ignoring it by focusing on the implementation itself being easy.

    Of course filtering things by a definition you’ve set is trivial. Out of all infinite possible definitions that we can choose, how do we make the right assumptions to choose the most optimal one, though? Do you see the issue and why you’re being kind of fucking stupid, man?

    source

    • Chronographs@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      I don’t agree that having multiple definitions for something makes it subjective, what it makes it is vague. If you provide one one of those definitions to someone and ask them if something meets it (and for the sake of argument they have full knowledge of how it was created) they should always be able to come to the same conclusion. As I understand it, and the definitions you provided, what makes something subjective is whether it will be unique to the person evaluating it. If my definition of good art is it makes ME feel something, somebody else could look at the same thing I do and come to a different conclusion. You couldn’t build a model that filters out bad art based on that subjective definition. All I’ve been trying to say is that whether something is AI is something that is definable but apparently I’m being too fucking stupid to make that clear.

      source

      • jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Well, you aren’t necessarily being stupid, even though that’s my own personal opinion, but you’re still committing a really blatant logical fallacy that doesn’t make you look very intelligent.

        Using your idea and definition of subjectivity vs objectivity… astrology is objective, given a horoscope. Phrenology is objective, given a craniometric table. What a “witch” is, is itself objective, given the Malleus Maleficarum.

        You’re saying that as long as some definition exists, the entire domain is objective, which is just patently fucking false and makes no sense if you think about it for even just a second. Words fucking mean things. You’re conflating “deterministic” with “objective” in a really obtuse manner. Just because something has a rule doesn’t mean it’s objective, it means that it’s internally consistent.

        You can go ahead and redefine subjectivity to fit your world if you please, no one is stopping you, but no one is privy to follow you either - you’ll be alone…

        I’m seriously not trying to be rude here, you’re just genuinely making a very grievous logical error and you can’t seem to see it.

        For example:

        If you provide one one of those definitions to someone and ask them if something meets it (and for the sake of argument they have full knowledge of how it was created) they should always be able to come to the same conclusion.

        This is virtually never true, in real life, because the only potential things that might have true “full knowledge” are god and the universe itself, but I digress. Even if I grant this weird hypothetical based on charitable interpretation, your whole fucking argument is still nonsensical. Determinism does not imply objectivity.

        If we define ‘criminal’ as anyone whose name appears on a list handed to us by the king, classification becomes deterministic… but it doesn’t make the list objective.

        You couldn’t build a model that filters out bad art based on that subjective definition.

        You acknowledge that the definition itself is subjective here (also, side note, I absolutely could trivially build a model based on the subjective definition “art is what makes @Chronographs@lemmy.zip feel good” and then filter art based on that. least ethically and most obviously, you could be strapped to a chair robot-chicken style and simply evaluate every sample for us since you already exist and we might as well not reinvent the wheel to fulfill our production order. the same way i can trivially build most any model once it’s been defined, which is the actual work).

        You then go on to claim that once something has been defined it is no longer subjective, i.e, a category or domain is objective one a definition has been applied. This is just a giant non-sequitur, it makes not one iota of sense because you’re confusing the definitions of multiple well-defined concepts as we go along.

        I know I’ve been pretty glaringly terse and rude in tone thus far but that’s because my job heavily involves logic and I deal with this shit daily, it gets tiring. If you’re genuinely interested in this stuff I encourage you to read more natural philosophy and study logic directly. The reaction I’m giving you here is soft compared to what actual academia will do to you if you ever step into the university system trying to bandy about arguments formulated like that.

        Your idea of subjectivity vs objectivity requires you to treat every charlatan on the street who comes to you with an idea as an oracle. That’s patently fucking absurd, to borrow from the literature.

        source

        • -> View More Comments