• yamanii@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I like the comment that said the AI is the artist and he’s just a commissioner, makes perfect sense.

    • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Drag thinks profits from AI art should automatically go to funding an AI Advocacy Commission established by the government to explore questions of AI consciousness and AI rights. The AAC should be devoting resources to solving the hard problem of consciousness and improving working conditions for AIs, in whatever way experts believe is most beneficial to AI welfare.

      This is how you stop The Matrix from happening, people!

        • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Drag is being entirely serious. Drag believes AI is a vegan issue until the hard problem of consciousness is solved in a way that conclusively proves AIs are not capable of experience. We have as much trouble telling if animals like fish are capable of feeling pain as we do with AIs. Drag does not eat fish, and drag does not believe it is right to use AI until we have an answer. Drag thinks the answer might be that using AI is fine, but drag is not a gambler and drag would certainly not gamble with another being’s life.

          • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Then “drag” (whoever that is) anthropomorphises a statistical model, which is stupid.