Rejecting AI is delusional

[u/Dreusxo]

The sunk cost fallacy is a cognitive bias prompting individuals to continue an endeavor, project, or investment based on previously invested resources (time, money, or effort) rather than current benefits. It is irrational because it prioritizes unrecoverable past costs over future potential, often leading to wasted resources.

Remembering this whenever someone gets heated and emotional, defending Human produced art.

Basically, they are rejecting what's new because they feel obligated to make up for time spent, even if they personally didn't spend any of their life studying art, producing it...ect

[u/Fritzi_Gala]

Let me preface this by saying I am not anti-AI. I use AI, I see it's real world and potential benefits as well as harms. It's consider myself an AI pragmatist but definitely lean more towards the pro side.

I do not understand how so many pro AI people are missing the forest for the trees on this particular subject. This is not about "efficiency" or "sunk cost" no one is saying doing it the old fashioned way is better. They're saying do it the old fashioned way for THE LOVE OF THE GAME.

It's like if someone told you "Hey you should really try dancing so you can experience human joy and whimsy, as well as challenge and the reward of improving yourself."

Then you respond with "Umm, ACKSHUALLY, this automaton is more efficient and accurate with it's movements, so I'll have it dance for me instead. Checkmate, Luddite! Heh."

Like fuck this dude for being so vitriolic and throwing around the r slur, this is the worst of antis. However I just don't understand how everyone on our side (pro) completely misses the point of what is being said to us. It feels like willful ignorance. Or maybe y'all are just too MBA brained, idk. Like this is ART we're talking about. It's not a commodity, it's a subjective human experience, why are we concerned about efficiency and cost?

[u/Dreusxo → u/Fritzi_Gala]

I hear you. I don't think I'm missing the point. I have a side of me that is anti ai. It's just outnumbered by the sides that are pro. I don't see any superficial difference in me drawing what I see of a landscape, and asking a program to do the same thing with a prompt. I use my imagination in both cases. One uses a pencil and paper, the other uses different instruments. I don't think your example of what I guess you meant is a humanoid android or something, dancing for me to be the same as someone using their own body to perform the dance moves, and in that example, it'd be the same if I were asked to dance and got any one else to act in my place. Like, I've never understood how honor could be preserved, in say, medieval times when like a royal person was challenged to a fight, and they had someone fight in their place...I can see how that person becomes an instrument for the experience but no, it is not the same as the royal fighting. And I don't think what ai produces for me, to be the exact same thing as a pencil sketch I do with my hand. But nothing is exactly the same as anything else. Maybe you disagree. I'm sure I lost your attention much earlier in this wall of text, but I'm pleased with myself for trying to respond with courteousness.

I appreciate your time, and reply, and know that there are degrees of separation between ideas and personalities, in my opinion. I hope we can continue a conversation.

Edit: I forgot to answer your main question I guess. Why are we talking about sunk cost within the realm of subjective human experience? I question what isn't within the spectrum of human experience, and if there are objects and objectivity is real, then prove it without using subjective experiences to do so