<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
On 01/04/2023 16:51, Spike wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.129.1680364262.847.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">
<p class="MsoNormal">Before long (if it hasn’t already happened)
someone will figure out how to generate art using AI, then use a
slightly modified flatbed printer-like device which will pick up
paint brushes and put paint on canvas.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Next step, someone shows up at an art show
displaying that, it begins to sell, the artist becomes famous.
It is the art world’s version of the science world’s threat of
realistic-looking counterfeit research papers.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
It has already happened, has been happening for some while.<br>
<br>
But I don't think that has any parallels with counterfeit research
papers.<br>
<br>
Counterfeit research papers don't have any actual research behind
them. They are lies (and dangerous ones!). If they do have actual
research behind them, they're not counterfeit.<br>
<br>
AI-generated works of art may be lied about (if someone claims they
weren't created by an AI, but by a human), but they aren't in
themselves lies, and they aren't dangerous. Except perhaps to the
egos or illusions of certain inflexible people.<br>
<br>
Science has real-world consequences (usually). Art is entertainment.
Faking things is part and parcel of making art, but you you fake
science at your peril - as Elizabeth Holmes has discovered.<br>
<br>
Ben<br>
</body>
</html>