AI Versus "Soul" A Study in Forum Tolerance For the Mundane

[TJMcG124 8]

On another site there is a long, ongoing discussion about the devils and angels of AI in photography with at least two posters claiming that "AI has no soul." I for one think nothing has a soul, but just for fun, I took a picture of mine, a throwaway from a trip to Mesa Arch in Utah, and tried my mightiest to describe it to Nano Banana, to see how close it would come. I am not a professional "prompt engineer" (yes, I saw that term used), but I did my best. Here is what I said: "
"I am looking at Mesa Arch in Canyonlands National Park I am on the east side curve of the arch, looking at the west side. The sun is bright, and the underside of the arch is glowing orange. Over on the West side, a man is standing, apparently holding a camera, and his head is tipped down slightly as if viewing the camera. He is wearing a gray hoodie jacket with the hood over his head and blue jeans. There is a tiny bit of a pale pink shirt showing at the bottom of the jacket. Through the arch, you see just a glimpse of the canyon below."

I know these AI discussions can get boring, but humor me... Here are the two pictures. Which of these has "soul"?

 

[greybeard45 18]

If it looks good, it is good. (jmho)

 

[Jeff1559 59]

Nice shots ...

 

[PhotoHobbyist127 153]

AI is easy to pick out. There is a lot of barrel distortion in pic, but the person suffers no effect.
It would be interesting if this site allowed a forum or a thread for AI pics just to compare them to reality.

 

[TJMcG124 8]

AI is easy to pick out.

Especially when it's a well-known, easily recognizable landmark like this. It never gets it quite right. AI is too pristine, too perfect.

 

[smoke665]

of AI in photography with at least two posters claiming that "AI has no soul

Okay, I'll bite. On the one hand the two are right, AI is not human, it lacks empathy, the ability to recognize emotion and self awareness (how it fits within a scene). It's nothing more than a complex algorithm that uses human instructions to compile an image from a data subset for reference.

On the other hand, by virtue of the fact that AI does not compile an image wholly on its own, from real life sensory experiences, IMO whether the image has "soul" is a fault of the data base available, and the human prompt. Does a a camera have a "soul" if no one touches it, does an artist's brush have a "soul" without human touch?

We are at the very beginning of AI, it's still a learning process for both man and machine. Rather than worrying about AI having no "soul" in images, we need to worry about the point of "Singularity" (the irreversible point when human intelligence merges with AI, or when AI surpasses human intelligence). That's when the human race will learn what the lack of "soul" really means.

 

[TJMcG124 8]

Okay, I'll bite. On the one hand the two are right, AI is not human, it lacks empathy, the ability to recognize emotion and self awareness (how it fits within a scene). It's nothing more than a complex algorithm that uses human instructions to compile an image from a data subset for reference.

On the other hand, by virtue of the fact that AI does not compile an image wholly on its own, from real life sensory experiences, IMO whether the image has "soul" is a fault of the data base available, and the human prompt. Does a a camera have a "soul" if no one touches it, does an artist's brush have a "soul" without human touch?

We are at the very beginning of AI, it's still a learning process for both man and machine. Rather than worrying about AI having no "soul" in images, we need to worry about the point of "Singularity" (the irreversible point when human intelligence merges with AI, or when AI surpasses human intelligence). That's when the human race will learn what the lack of "soul" really means.

If there is a consensus, or anything resembling one, it seems to be that AI in all of its iterations is being purposed to do everything for the human, who will then lose his desire and eventually his ability to think on his own. AI in some form creates "photos," writes novels, writes code, creates movies, corrects our grammar, and just about everything else. I am something of a grammar cop, and while I, too, make mistakes, it bothers me to see obvious misuse of language become so widespread. The solution? Get Grammarly, accept what it tells you is correct, and stop learning how to spell. That goes for math as well, and must eventually apply to everything done by humans.

People love to say, "AI is just another tool." Maybe, but it seems to be a tool designed make us stupid.

 

[smoke665]

People love to say, "AI is just another tool." Maybe, but it seems to be a tool designed make us stupid.

The older I get the more I realize how pertinent the adage "use it or lose it is". However that applies to all aspects of modern living. Are we less healthy eating processed food vs the home cooking of the past. Are we less healthy by using the convenience of transportation instead of walking. As kids we played outside from daylight to dark, compare that to modern couch potato kids with their devices. The list goes on.

 

[AlanKlein93 9]

Without human prompts and learning from previous human discoveries (data libraries), AI just sits there. Its; soul and creativity come from humans. It can;t really think out of the box. It has no ego, fear, pain, cannot love or hate, has no feelings. So innovation and creativity will be limited. More important than art, it will never be able to answer these questions. Should we go to war or stay at peace? Should we impose capital punishment? Should they stay married? Should I have children? Should I sign a Do Not Resuscitate? Which school should I go to? What profession should I study for? When should I retire? When am I spending too much time on forums answering unanswerable questions?

 

[smoke665]

@AlanKlein we've been at odds at times, but this is a very well thought out response!

 

[greybeard45 18]

I look at Ai like a lab grown diamond. It's fine as long as one doesn't try to pass it off as the real thing.

 

[PhotoHobbyist127 153]

Okay, I'll bite. On the one hand the two are right, AI is not human, it lacks empathy, the ability to recognize emotion and self awareness (how it fits within a scene). It's nothing more than a complex algorithm that uses human instructions to compile an image from a data subset for reference.

AI is scary because it is not a complex algorithm that takes instructions from humans. It is a model of the human brain consisting of virtual neurons. Essentially, a new born baby that learns. Like a human baby, the creators have no idea what it is thinking about or how it comes up with solutions.

 

[smoke665]

AI is scary because it is not a complex algorithm that takes instructions from humans. It is a model of the human brain consisting of virtual neurons. Essentially, a new born baby that learns. Like a human baby, the creators have no idea what it is thinking about or how it comes up with solutions.

Only partially correct as you've taken parts out of context. Ai forms artificial networks that "mimic" the brain's neural biological structures. AI forms modular based interconnected systems that replicate the neural pathways based on a mathematical model. AI lacks the ability to feel pain or pleasure, subjective consciousness, or genuine life experiences. It mimics human-like responses by processing vast amounts of data to emulate a thought, it can sound convincing but it's not actual self awareness. While it has the ability to learn based on evolving data, it still lacks intuition, and independent thought. Therein lies another of the big problems with AI, who's supplying the data. AI's ability to present a logical sounding thought, could be affected by tainted or manipulated data, misleading people.

 

[PhotoHobbyist127 153]

Only partially correct as you've taken parts out of context. Ai forms artificial networks that "mimic" the brain's neural biological structures. AI forms modular based interconnected systems that replicate the neural pathways based on a mathematical model. AI lacks the ability to feel pain or pleasure, subjective consciousness, or genuine life experiences. It mimics human-like responses by processing vast amounts of data to emulate a thought, it can sound convincing but it's not actual self awareness. While it has the ability to learn based on evolving data, it still lacks intuition, and independent thought. Therein lies another of the big problems with AI, who's supplying the data. AI's ability to present a logical sounding thought, could be affected by tainted or manipulated data, misleading people.

Recently, I had deal with a utility company and a recording said I would transferred to an AI agent. It was indistinguishable from a real human having proper intonation, timing, conveyed emotion, and even slight pauses to convey a thought process, but no delays in responses. If I hadn't been told beforehand it was AI I would not have know it was not a real human being. It is getting scary.

 

[smoke665]

If I hadn't been told beforehand it was AI I would not have know it was not a real human being. It is getting scary.

All customer service/help desks typically follow a proprietory product/service oriented flow chart. Prior to AI we hired entry level people to work the CS/help desk, gave them the chart of canned responses, a phone and turned them loose. Speech recognition software started showing up in the 50's. I had Dragon in the 90s for speech to text. It was only a matter of time before Voice Cloning started in the late 90s and expanded rapidly to combine input and output. Using AI on the CS/help desk is a no brainer for companies, because it doesn't require subjective thinking or intuition. It's working off a canned response list, when it reaches the end of its options it has to transfer you to a live person.