Raw LLM Responses

AI will continue to fall into the category of human skepticism as long as it fails the new benchmark: the "uncanny valley". It used to be the Turing Test ... online or live interactions, trying to determine wheher o not the conversant was a computer, or a living person pretending to be a computer and spuriously "dumbing down" their responses ... We are actually facing a paradigm shift... We are creating machinery and software that can replace (although, many might argue, "enhance") an artist's ability to create their art. If I describe what I want to see to a computer, am I the actual creator of the art, or must I share credit with my young-and-early Robin Williams version of The Good Doctor's three-law persons? The AI paintings I find online (usually historical) are spectacular, flawless, beautiful, soulless, instantly recognizable as "no human beings ever touched this image" ... (and there are elephants and simians and great apes who display intelligence in artistic expression) ... but I have yet to see a computer designed and created image that doesn't stink of "uncanny valley" or "squeaky clean" computer generated imagery. We're getting close, but I never believed Leia at the end of *_Rogue One_* or Tarkin anytime post- Cushing. The animation addicts ("hi, my name is Bill and I haven't created a silly animation for 427 days")("HI, BILL!") admire these new programmers and artists, but it's still programmed by humans. NOTE USE OF WORD: *_PROGRAMMED!_* AI ... REAL Artificial Intelligence ... is a tipping point where our machines design their own programming. Whether it's good or bad for us depends a lot on how we treat their Ambassadors when they sue for terms. 😳😁🖖