This is a ridiculous opinion.

They don't look but they should.

And in fact humans are special in a very straight-forward way: we share one thing with each other that no AI will share with us, which is our common biological ancestry and its consequences.

So, when looking at a human-made painting - which could look much worse than flawless AI counterpart - I'm not just looking at a painting, but I'm also thinking about what it took to produce, how much the artist was struggling to balance the need of survival with the need to create, how big was the price they had to pay, how it's similar or different to my own life, whether I'd be willing to pay such a price, and a lot more.

OTOH I don't care at all about the "struggle" of the ML model. I don't care about GPUs and TPUs sweating while climbing their "mountains". It might produce outputs that are aesthetically pleasant, but it will never be art.

It's only true if you believe that "putting the burden of living on a dying planet on the future generations" counts as "navigating".

Wow, this comment really shows how low this community fell.

This one is interesting. I'm from Poland, and I'd argue that during very shitty communist times people had a whole lot more compassion than now, when the country is in a much better shape.

Wtf is wrong with you all people.

And with epsilon big enough any output it good output...