Sunday, June 11, 2023

INVISIBLE CHEATING AND VISIBLE RIGHTS

How do we decide who is worthy? How do we select for competency? A recent Grammarly advertisement hinged on an application for residency. I took that to mean medical residency. Grammarly is helping him with his personal statement and curriculum vitae. I found that disturbing.






Of course, no one test is sufficient. Doctors must be approved by government and professional licensing boards. In the USA, the AMA enjoys quasi-governmental status. So, even if this nice young man is letting Grammarly do his writing, his promotion from hospital intern to hospital resident is not assured. 

 

Right now, so-called “artificial intelligence” products are bringing into question what it means to be original. 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/03/tech/ai-art-fair-winner-controversy/index.html

AI won an art contest, and artists are furious

By Rachel Metz, CNN Business

Published 10:54 AM EDT, Sat September 3, 2022

CNN Business

 — 

Jason M. Allen was almost too nervous to enter his first art competition. Now, his award-winning image is sparking controversy about whether art can be generated by a computer, and what, exactly, it means to be an artist.


In August, Allen, a game designer who lives in Pueblo West, Colorado, won first place in the emerging artist division’s “digital arts/digitally-manipulated photography” category at the Colorado State Fair Fine Arts Competition. His winning image, titled “Théâtre D’opéra Spatial” (French for “Space Opera Theater”), was made with Midjourney — an artificial intelligence system that can produce detailed images when fed written prompts. A $300 prize accompanied his win.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/03/tech/ai-art-fair-winner-controversy/index.html


On the Cloudy Nights discussion board, which is mostly dedicated to chat about observational astronomy, in the forum for “Science! Astronomy, Space Exploration, and Others,” a topic title was the question “What can’t artificial intelligence do?”  The introductory post started: We have made machines that can play chess better than we can. We are close to making machines that can write novels better than we can. Threshold question. Is there a limit? I can see no reason that there should be. The interesting question. What happens when we can make machines that can do everything better than we can?” In 100 replies, I was the only person who pointed out that while an AI could write a better novel, the novel itself was an invention. I received just one "like" for the comment. 


"(As far as we know) only humans can invent something new. You can say that an AI can write a novel better than a human, but the novel is an invention. As a form of narration and history, the novel is relatively recent. Poetry - epic poetry - was first. And before poems were invented, people made lists of things. ... Painting as we know it evolved in a series of quantum leaps. By the 4th century BCE graphical realism had achieved what we regard as modern techniques. The "Renaissance Masters" of Holland painted in a hyper-realistic style that violated "natural" vision. See The Arnolfini Portrait by Jan Van Eyck.  If you were in the room where the painter stood, you would not see the image in the mirror at the back the way it is presented in the painting. It is hyper-real. Impressionism, Expressionism, Abstract, ...  Performance Art.... Even John Cage, an intellectual fraud*, carried out original ideas not requested of him by someone else. That is the essential distinguishing characteristic that explains the difference between human intelligence and machine intelligence."


The question remains unanswered because it is a slippery slope. Grammarly targets two markets: college students writing homework essays; young professionals writing business memoranda. Is it wrong to have someone (something) else proofread your work before you turn it in? I often get red squiggly underlines warning me that I miskeyed or misspelled a word. Whatever the gradient of that slope, we know the difference between having someone (something) else check your work and taking work that was not yours originally. That is plagiarism, and in business, it is theft and fraud.


Whether the impulse to sue for rights originates spontaneously within the plaintiff or was learned by the plaintiff from observing others is irrelevant. The deeper question is how the laws of various geographies will view the action when a computer program insists that it is alive and has rights.


*Having read from his Silence: Lectures and Writings, I changed my opinion of John Cage. 

 

PREVIOUSLY ON NECESSARY FACTS


All Volitional Beings Deserve Rights 

Not Invented Here 

Copy Rights and Wrongs 

Objective Intellectual Property Law 

U. S. Patent Law Does Not Add Up 

Patent Nonsense 


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.