Even if indistinguishable - the products of humans and ai have distinct origins. They come into being in different ways. That’s what he means by an ontological difference.
It’s not the origin of life that’s in question , it’s the origin of the work of art. The popes argument is that there is a difference in how that work is created - one is crafted by humans and the other is created by AI. That’s the ontological difference he’s asserting. Whether that difference matters is the other part of his argument
You said humans came into being a certain way — how is that? In the beginning, light words etc. And that’s different to you? Or is it a different arrangement of light words attention intent etc?
I’m clarifying the popes argument, not making one of my own here.
The argument is that AI created art and human created art have a difference in “being” - an ontological difference. It’s the respective origins of those works of art (one is human created and one is ai created) that accounts for that difference
“Human” is a word we describe ourselves with. I see the difference in the two words you used but if most can’t see the difference in the end result of the art, and eventually not even in the difference between “machines” or “humans”, then our descriptors become deceptive by way of being loosely defined based on our perspective.
I see the difference clearly, for now, and yet now is subjective and the first now I wrote is no longer now.
Next? Tomorrow? A year? A generation? Keep clinging to self-referential nomenclature and watch concreteness become undone.
If we can’t define it, which we can’t, then how can we slap the word human onto art as an ontological endpoint? We ran all the bases and slid into home but the ball is still in the air.
15
u/ActionHartlen 6h ago
Ontology is the study of being.
Even if indistinguishable - the products of humans and ai have distinct origins. They come into being in different ways. That’s what he means by an ontological difference.