Is the product of AI truly artificial, or is it something else?
Sorry mods if this post breaks the rules, I'm not trying to do a rant or an essay, I just feel like I need to articulate myself to ask this question in a productive manner.
Let me start by explaining what I mean by "artificial" so we are all on the same boat.
Many people would agree that there is no such thing as "artificial" because human beings are a part of nature and so their creations also stem from nature. This is correct, we can't treat natural things and artificial things as a dichotomy, because the very process of transforming nature is not something set in stone.
For example, are dogs natural? Many dog breeds were artificially selected by humans, but it would be controversial to say that a pug is as artificial as a car.
Are bird nests and beaver dams natural? They are animals just like us, what makes human transformative power any different?
But that's besides my point. If we can agree that there is a characteristic intrinsic in human-made things, and therefore, a usefulness to distinguish them from the things created without human intervention, we are good.
So, why am I saying that?
I think there is a new distinction between things made by humans and artificial intelligence, or putting it in another way, natural intelligence vs artificial intelligence.
LLMs do not behave like tools in the way a hammer or a 3D modeling software would. They are not things that enable human creativity or make the transformative jobs of humans easier, they lead to outcomes far beyond what the prompter knows or asks it to do.
That kind of distinction seems relevant when we discuss topics such as AI generated "art". Many would argue that the true lack of control and effort by the AI "artist" bastardizes true human expression to a point that the outcome cannot be considered artistic anymore.
The problem people have with AI generated media isn't the fact that it's artificial, because all art is. The problem they have is that the process of creation is so divorced from the human that it can no longer be considered part of it's creation.
In a sense, if we have a word to distinguish the natural and the artificial (even if there is some overlap, ass all words do) we should also have a word to distinguish what is human made from what is AI generated.
Natural intelligences produce artificial outcomes.
Artificial intelligences produce _ _ _ _ _ _ outcomes.
Of course one could argue that this whole thing is arbitrary, but that's just how language works.
Important note - I'm not trying to argue that this means AI has a "soul" or a "subjective" aspect to it. The same way you don't need to believe in a God to agree that the natural exists. It's just the product of a process.
If we are to agree that AI "art" isn't human made, it feels weird to put it in the same category as mountains, animals and stars. Of course just like our artificial objects everything stems from nature, but calling Tung Tung Sahur a product of nature only works if we stretch the definition to it's limit. It also feels equally as inadequate to put Tung Tung Sahur in the same category as Mickey Mouse. One is a character born from human creativity and another is an accidental algorithm creation.
I only like philosophy as a hobby so if anyone knows of a thinker or an article exploring this idea please recommend it to me!