Comment on Jack Dorsey Releases Vine Reboot Where AI Content Is Banned
Chronographs@lemmy.zip 1 day agoI 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.
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:
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 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.
Chronographs@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Honestly, at this point I don’t care enough any more to defend a throwaway comment I made so congratulations, you won, I’m an idiot I guess so I’ll go worship a charlatan or something.