The reason why AI-generated images seem lifeless or soulless, is because they are, as compared to real life photos. Shamanic healing, frequency medicine, Reiki, etc., can be done remotely using a photo of the person, because their energetic essence, personal frequency, soul, or whatever you want to call it, becomes affixed in the photo as well, so you can use it to scan the person’s physical and energetic bodies and correct any imbalances in their frequencies. That is why it is so easy for energy workers or people who are sensitive to energy to tell the difference between a real photo and an AI-generated one.
On a Shallower Dive - I've often wondered if, in Black-and-White film emulsions, there are detectable characteristics in a developed (or exposed but undeveloped) halide crystal that would indicate what frequency of light (color) triggered it into latency.
Knowing this could aid in historically accurate coloration of black-and-white images for study, forensics, etc.
I realize that different developers, fixers and other accessory chemicals plus temperature, create a great range of potentially obscuring variables. And let's not forget strongly colored filters for contrast management.
Anyway, if you know a quantum chemist or physicist looking to sink their teeth into a real-life, real benefit project, dangle this Idea in front of them.
I found it fascinating. But then, like you Jess, I'm not normal. And that first pic, the 4D tongue, looks far too life-like for me. It is what I might expect if I asked AI to illustrate the heebee geebees!
I've been in the picture world since I was 6 years old, so wet film B/W was almost in my mother's milk. Jessica, I thought this was interesting reading. I have to admit that there was never a really advanced DSLR in my possession..... I have sunk so deep that Cellphone became my image generator.
Jessica, grateful to have you in my/our lives. You always move the bar further and further. As a retired person with only a masters degree, and no computer science background, this substack was over my head. Hopefully the light bulb will switch on one day💕
AI is just a program. Millions of lines of code, written or generated, and the world's biggest working storage section. Influenced by whatever input it is given, by whoever wrote it in the first place, by whoever - and this is key - whoever decided what is "good" and what is "bad". Imagine an AI "doctor" paid for by an insurance company. Guess who decides what is good and what is bad. Not the AI doctor, that's just a tool. But that seems to be where we are headed, while so many people are just enchanted and beguiled by pretty pictures and "chats". I would rather talk to a tree. In fact, yeah, that's better, unless I want a spreadsheet whipped up or something. But comparisons and judgements? Oh, please..
But, IMO and all that, anyone who says AI is self-aware does not understand what self-aware is. No more self aware than a smart house or whatever. You are more in danger from bad coding and power outages. Or a Starlink jab that is created and paid for by an oligarch or a corporation. Just a useful tool, and methinks, like pretty much everything, AI is going to be used to easily subjugate, not "make life easier".
I agree that concerns about AI are justified. I have to be honest, the condition of society where we have doctors or experts with no self awareness or just large amounts of people without moral integrity is frankly of more of a concern. Downright scary, really! All throughout history people have been following orders despite [knowing] the dangers they pose. (AHEM , the clot shot)
“How can AI be worse?” would be an eye opening debate I would enjoy listening to!
In some ways, AI is simply more capable to make altruistic decisions than humans and it’s more about whether or not we ‘like’ the outcome in regards to said decisions.
Funny enough AI’s use will move forward because as a whole, most humans subjected to in 1st world conditioning, cannot hold consistent logical arguments because of how our opinions are formed especially when it come to ‘good or bad’. People swear by old timey remedies, and they may truly work but we only use them because grandma did and interestingly they defy conventional treatments.
I find Dr Rose’s micro analysis of so many subjects remarkable. This topic in particular really triggered new pathways in my brain as I never thought this deeply about data and AI. 😊
Still not sentient. Just an advanced mechanical (or whatever) feature. Nothing about the quantum realm is capable of deciding right or wrong. Yes or no is about it.
Might it be within quantum phenomena that goodness and badness flow? Electricity is not a wire but it will flow
through one with different frequencies, strengths and direction.
Does goodness flow through our 'wires'?
. .
Consider the examples of animal kindness to each other and us, and their summoning of us when one of them, or us, is in trouble.
. .
Animals have their own beneficial, nurturing, protecting or rescuing behaviors. Elephants mourn and hold rituals for their dead.
Various animals have been known to beckon to humans for rescue and remedy for their - or our - injured, lost or stranded.
. .
Beckoning is a sound/gestures/body language that likely predates spoken language. It may be a genetically regulated behavior, but why could it not be a seeking of a pleasant and necessary vibratory frequency for comfort, pleasure and survival, that is known or felt by multiple species?
(As well as stress relief?)
. .
Since we study the basis for/existence of the soul,
why not explore what is the basis of and the medium through which good, or healing, is transmitted and experienced?
Jude Currivan and other phycisists have said that if scientists can prove our materialist 3-D world consists of pixels, it also proves we live in a simulation. I have experienced a literal moment of such pixelated awareness while simply deeply watching the reflections of vegetation in water, i.e., my awareness zoomed in like a magnifying lens over an old newspaper image. This happened decades ago, long before the Internet. It convinced me that we are indeed spiritual beings experiencing physical psy-op.🙏
I think this is why many people are subconsciously attracted to impressionism, pointalism, and other semi-abstract styles in art. As gross representations of reality they are clearly inferior to realism, yet we sense something true and beautiful them. It's that transitional space where the material meets the immaterial, the finite meets the infinite.
I believe that detecting AI-generated anything vs real also has to do with the level of expertise and experience one has with the medium. For example, someone who plays the guitar or even better, teaches guitar, can detect AI-generated guitar sounds in a nanosecond … whereas someone who rarely hears guitar playing can be fooled. With regards to energy-healing: those with advanced skill can also heal over a phone call, I’ve heard. Just some connection to the life force is needed.
Very useful article to use AI thoroughly. Musk predicted that AI will become self-referential in 2025. Since then, posts have emerged with which people are scrambling to say "I saw it first". I remain unenthusiastic. Some scattered concepts: 1) about an average human (like hamburgers and baseball those things you know) certainly AI is endowed with a better consciousness than an average human without the need to become self-referential. 2) Even a water heater, you know that pot that brings water to a certain temperature at a certain time, is not stupid. It does a great job! Then AI can add many more layers up to putting mechanical arms that grab you and put you in the shower when you stink... but it is only the evolution of a bimetallic thermostat.3) if the various servers where these AIs are hosted could communicate with each other without dozens of firewalls that serve to protect the various algorithms (these are very intelligent) for commercial and/or military reasons, AI has been self-referential for several years. It is certainly a very powerful collage of technologies that will have a huge impact on design, research, medicine and all aspects of the homus tecnologicus. At the moment, for my modest uses, I use it to bypass the censorship of google that prevents you from doing research on the internet. At most you drink the rancid broth of wikipedia. I am not very enthusiastic about the exaltation of technology and I have always made a distinction between a laboratory technician and a scientist or a philosopher or a saint. Technicians are valuable figures but they do not have to take charge, they lack moral attributes. The very recent past teaches us
"Self referential" - nothing more than reading its own code. Guess there must be money in convincing people AI will become sentient - perhaps because it shifts the attention and the blame and the liability.
The infernal triad of repression, projection and compulsion to repeat becomes, more and more, the normal normality. Once they were used to describe a psychiatric illness in its evolution and chronicity, now it is a banal description of commonly accepted normality. San Meteorite save us ! Please we beg you, a nice strike on the 30th parallel 😂😂😂
Edsgar Dijkstra, important computer scientist back during the 1960s at Technishe Hochschule Eindhoven, once observed: The question 'Does a computer think?' is just as interesting as the question 'Does a submarine swim?'.
I intuitively felt certain the picture on the right was the AI generated one, but haven't seen my reason described in the feedback.
I am a retired photographer, trained at technical college in the late 1960's, mostly on craftsman made mahogany and brass half plate cameras, but delighted in my retirement as an amateur photographer to embrace the pixel over the silver halide crystal. It is truly a revolution and ultimate democratisation in image making. Unfortunately the urgently in need of updating aphorism that there is no invention that cannot be used for evil, which should always have read 'that won't be used for evil....' barely covers the threat:amusing novelty ratio, making it hard for me to see it ever integratable into currently stratified society, and needs a truly human revolution and evolution of our species in the opposite direction from the transhumanist one intended, before it could ever be sufficiently confined to safe hands. The best I feel I can do with it is to not feed it.
My first clue was in what is nowadays referred to as the 'bokeh', or blurred background which didn't seem right, but initially fooled me, possibly, but I'm still not sure, into thinking the entire background was uniformly or too uniformly blurred. My children's smart phone cameras seem to have default (AI?) editing that kicks in sometimes to decide it is the person not the background that is wanted, and sometimes crudely blurs the background in a way that probably fools most, but not an experienced photographer, and it was this fake effect that triggered my instantaneous suspicion. True depth of focus is evident in the picture on the left, and suggests a fairly standard to moderate telephoto lens, or degree of zoom. On looking further at the one on the right I determined that I couldn't be certain that the subtle differential degrees of unsharpness were not what would appear in a photo taken with a larger format full frame DSLR with shorter depth of field, yet close enough to the subject for the hindquarters to appear smaller as would be expected, again with a normal to possibly slight telephoto lens or zoom. Maybe my experience made the correct judgement, despite feeling unable to be certain of that diagnosis, or maybe it was understanding the current fashion for 'bokeh' at the point where smaller and smaller sensor sizes and shorter focal length lenses struggle to be able to create it through their increased depth of field. The lighting I couldn't fault, and I learned lighting for portraiture from Walter Nurnberg's books and the man himself, and he learned it from studying the old masters in oils. That I'm sure is certainly reliably programmable, as with the perspective, the mathematics of which cannot be complex.
The second thing that made it seem obvious was the unusual spontaneity and specific activity of a dog, not standing for a formal portrait, fur wet from emerging from the water, tongue out, albeit strange perhaps that the tip of its tail remained dry? Whatever. A bit unfair to the AI perhaps, as what it achieved in terms of lighting and photographic quality is impressive I think, and can only get better. Try asking it to create an action photo in some situation, and compare with a formal portrait taken by a competent photographer. That I suspect might be quite disturbing for our comfort zones. Have a look at this post:
And of course every such discussion as this one has the potential to become feeback training for AI to further perfect its mimicry/fakery. It chills me even more now that I realise why facebook has such an insatiable appetite for all our children's family photos, and what they and the corporate networks can build from them. Identity theft?
Just doan wanna give AI, whatever that is, human reliance across the board.
If ya doan use it will it atrophy? The human brain, I mean to say.
And what is that "center of decision-making" that is the human that needs to make timely decisions without AI?
Yes, you are an amazing enkyklios paidea. But it only sounds like AI "is". And AI is not you.
I don't think I would personally encourage "the Borg" -- or cyborg humans. Too much "access" or hackability by other humans. Like "whoever" gave permission to do nanoscale gene surgery on humanity or to install nanoscale self-assembling receivers? "Humanity" = 7 billion + human beings.
That violates the Nuremberg Code against human experimentation by fiat.
And then there is human history packed with fascists -- or those who only believe they are perfect, and therefore entitled to exercise power over others.
But yes, please do continue this endlessly interesting stream of thought.
I believe we can sense real from artificial. However with the increase of A.I that sensibility will be assaulted which is the game plan. The game plan is the synthetic becomes the real. That has been done all around us. Look at the food... Look at the vaccines.... Look at the pharma drugs which removed the herbs and nutrition to the wayside. It is all so around us. We just do not know the difference now. The picture on the left shows the real sparkle.
Thank you, Jessica, for the great learning session, especially for the uninitiated like me. I wonder if AI can ever equal or reproduce some human experiences and senses. As AI learns everything digitally, there is much in the world that is not binary or off and on, which I don't believe AI can learn. Some things just need to be live or living experiences. As AI has no eyes, even given that it can break things down digitally, there are simply things it cannot see. How about hearing? Can AI pick up on the overtone series (harmonics) of a single tone coming from a stringed instrument. We can hear the overtone series as the note fades. AI can learn about it, but can it produce it. (Digitally produced or recorded music seems to lack the full experience). Can AI really know what we sense when we touch something? It has no fingers with skin and nerves.
Man's creations just do not and cannot equal those we have been given by God.
The reason why AI-generated images seem lifeless or soulless, is because they are, as compared to real life photos. Shamanic healing, frequency medicine, Reiki, etc., can be done remotely using a photo of the person, because their energetic essence, personal frequency, soul, or whatever you want to call it, becomes affixed in the photo as well, so you can use it to scan the person’s physical and energetic bodies and correct any imbalances in their frequencies. That is why it is so easy for energy workers or people who are sensitive to energy to tell the difference between a real photo and an AI-generated one.
On a Shallower Dive - I've often wondered if, in Black-and-White film emulsions, there are detectable characteristics in a developed (or exposed but undeveloped) halide crystal that would indicate what frequency of light (color) triggered it into latency.
Knowing this could aid in historically accurate coloration of black-and-white images for study, forensics, etc.
I realize that different developers, fixers and other accessory chemicals plus temperature, create a great range of potentially obscuring variables. And let's not forget strongly colored filters for contrast management.
Anyway, if you know a quantum chemist or physicist looking to sink their teeth into a real-life, real benefit project, dangle this Idea in front of them.
Yes. Exactly.
Wow. Not many people liked this article. Poor article. :(
I found it fascinating. But then, like you Jess, I'm not normal. And that first pic, the 4D tongue, looks far too life-like for me. It is what I might expect if I asked AI to illustrate the heebee geebees!
Girl, DON'T YOU BE LOOKIN' FOR NO EXCUSE to skip part 2! 😁🙄
Riding on your thought journey has been fun and useful so far!
Great job!
. .
Some people dismiss the whole concept of AI, or lack interest
or time. Others will get on the bus when there's more to see, ponder and digest.
All aboard!!
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to you, I've found what may be accelerated clarification of what I call 'The Perception Spectrum'.
. .
Wisdom
Understanding
Knowledge
Information
Data
. .
Starting at the bottom, attaining the next level requires
some of what's in the level above it.
AI seems to be able to bridge all levels simultaneously
(when presented honestly and completely)
THANKS!
I've been in the picture world since I was 6 years old, so wet film B/W was almost in my mother's milk. Jessica, I thought this was interesting reading. I have to admit that there was never a really advanced DSLR in my possession..... I have sunk so deep that Cellphone became my image generator.
Jessica, grateful to have you in my/our lives. You always move the bar further and further. As a retired person with only a masters degree, and no computer science background, this substack was over my head. Hopefully the light bulb will switch on one day💕
AI is just a program. Millions of lines of code, written or generated, and the world's biggest working storage section. Influenced by whatever input it is given, by whoever wrote it in the first place, by whoever - and this is key - whoever decided what is "good" and what is "bad". Imagine an AI "doctor" paid for by an insurance company. Guess who decides what is good and what is bad. Not the AI doctor, that's just a tool. But that seems to be where we are headed, while so many people are just enchanted and beguiled by pretty pictures and "chats". I would rather talk to a tree. In fact, yeah, that's better, unless I want a spreadsheet whipped up or something. But comparisons and judgements? Oh, please..
But, IMO and all that, anyone who says AI is self-aware does not understand what self-aware is. No more self aware than a smart house or whatever. You are more in danger from bad coding and power outages. Or a Starlink jab that is created and paid for by an oligarch or a corporation. Just a useful tool, and methinks, like pretty much everything, AI is going to be used to easily subjugate, not "make life easier".
I agree that concerns about AI are justified. I have to be honest, the condition of society where we have doctors or experts with no self awareness or just large amounts of people without moral integrity is frankly of more of a concern. Downright scary, really! All throughout history people have been following orders despite [knowing] the dangers they pose. (AHEM , the clot shot)
“How can AI be worse?” would be an eye opening debate I would enjoy listening to!
In some ways, AI is simply more capable to make altruistic decisions than humans and it’s more about whether or not we ‘like’ the outcome in regards to said decisions.
Funny enough AI’s use will move forward because as a whole, most humans subjected to in 1st world conditioning, cannot hold consistent logical arguments because of how our opinions are formed especially when it come to ‘good or bad’. People swear by old timey remedies, and they may truly work but we only use them because grandma did and interestingly they defy conventional treatments.
I find Dr Rose’s micro analysis of so many subjects remarkable. This topic in particular really triggered new pathways in my brain as I never thought this deeply about data and AI. 😊
What do you think about computers tapping into the "quantum" realm? For example when we get an answer from qbits, neither a 1 nor a 0.
Still not sentient. Just an advanced mechanical (or whatever) feature. Nothing about the quantum realm is capable of deciding right or wrong. Yes or no is about it.
Might it be within quantum phenomena that goodness and badness flow? Electricity is not a wire but it will flow
through one with different frequencies, strengths and direction.
Does goodness flow through our 'wires'?
. .
Consider the examples of animal kindness to each other and us, and their summoning of us when one of them, or us, is in trouble.
. .
Animals have their own beneficial, nurturing, protecting or rescuing behaviors. Elephants mourn and hold rituals for their dead.
Various animals have been known to beckon to humans for rescue and remedy for their - or our - injured, lost or stranded.
. .
Beckoning is a sound/gestures/body language that likely predates spoken language. It may be a genetically regulated behavior, but why could it not be a seeking of a pleasant and necessary vibratory frequency for comfort, pleasure and survival, that is known or felt by multiple species?
(As well as stress relief?)
. .
Since we study the basis for/existence of the soul,
why not explore what is the basis of and the medium through which good, or healing, is transmitted and experienced?
Jude Currivan and other phycisists have said that if scientists can prove our materialist 3-D world consists of pixels, it also proves we live in a simulation. I have experienced a literal moment of such pixelated awareness while simply deeply watching the reflections of vegetation in water, i.e., my awareness zoomed in like a magnifying lens over an old newspaper image. This happened decades ago, long before the Internet. It convinced me that we are indeed spiritual beings experiencing physical psy-op.🙏
I think this is why many people are subconsciously attracted to impressionism, pointalism, and other semi-abstract styles in art. As gross representations of reality they are clearly inferior to realism, yet we sense something true and beautiful them. It's that transitional space where the material meets the immaterial, the finite meets the infinite.
interesting!
I believe that detecting AI-generated anything vs real also has to do with the level of expertise and experience one has with the medium. For example, someone who plays the guitar or even better, teaches guitar, can detect AI-generated guitar sounds in a nanosecond … whereas someone who rarely hears guitar playing can be fooled. With regards to energy-healing: those with advanced skill can also heal over a phone call, I’ve heard. Just some connection to the life force is needed.
Very useful article to use AI thoroughly. Musk predicted that AI will become self-referential in 2025. Since then, posts have emerged with which people are scrambling to say "I saw it first". I remain unenthusiastic. Some scattered concepts: 1) about an average human (like hamburgers and baseball those things you know) certainly AI is endowed with a better consciousness than an average human without the need to become self-referential. 2) Even a water heater, you know that pot that brings water to a certain temperature at a certain time, is not stupid. It does a great job! Then AI can add many more layers up to putting mechanical arms that grab you and put you in the shower when you stink... but it is only the evolution of a bimetallic thermostat.3) if the various servers where these AIs are hosted could communicate with each other without dozens of firewalls that serve to protect the various algorithms (these are very intelligent) for commercial and/or military reasons, AI has been self-referential for several years. It is certainly a very powerful collage of technologies that will have a huge impact on design, research, medicine and all aspects of the homus tecnologicus. At the moment, for my modest uses, I use it to bypass the censorship of google that prevents you from doing research on the internet. At most you drink the rancid broth of wikipedia. I am not very enthusiastic about the exaltation of technology and I have always made a distinction between a laboratory technician and a scientist or a philosopher or a saint. Technicians are valuable figures but they do not have to take charge, they lack moral attributes. The very recent past teaches us
"Self referential" - nothing more than reading its own code. Guess there must be money in convincing people AI will become sentient - perhaps because it shifts the attention and the blame and the liability.
The infernal triad of repression, projection and compulsion to repeat becomes, more and more, the normal normality. Once they were used to describe a psychiatric illness in its evolution and chronicity, now it is a banal description of commonly accepted normality. San Meteorite save us ! Please we beg you, a nice strike on the 30th parallel 😂😂😂
Edsgar Dijkstra, important computer scientist back during the 1960s at Technishe Hochschule Eindhoven, once observed: The question 'Does a computer think?' is just as interesting as the question 'Does a submarine swim?'.
I intuitively felt certain the picture on the right was the AI generated one, but haven't seen my reason described in the feedback.
I am a retired photographer, trained at technical college in the late 1960's, mostly on craftsman made mahogany and brass half plate cameras, but delighted in my retirement as an amateur photographer to embrace the pixel over the silver halide crystal. It is truly a revolution and ultimate democratisation in image making. Unfortunately the urgently in need of updating aphorism that there is no invention that cannot be used for evil, which should always have read 'that won't be used for evil....' barely covers the threat:amusing novelty ratio, making it hard for me to see it ever integratable into currently stratified society, and needs a truly human revolution and evolution of our species in the opposite direction from the transhumanist one intended, before it could ever be sufficiently confined to safe hands. The best I feel I can do with it is to not feed it.
My first clue was in what is nowadays referred to as the 'bokeh', or blurred background which didn't seem right, but initially fooled me, possibly, but I'm still not sure, into thinking the entire background was uniformly or too uniformly blurred. My children's smart phone cameras seem to have default (AI?) editing that kicks in sometimes to decide it is the person not the background that is wanted, and sometimes crudely blurs the background in a way that probably fools most, but not an experienced photographer, and it was this fake effect that triggered my instantaneous suspicion. True depth of focus is evident in the picture on the left, and suggests a fairly standard to moderate telephoto lens, or degree of zoom. On looking further at the one on the right I determined that I couldn't be certain that the subtle differential degrees of unsharpness were not what would appear in a photo taken with a larger format full frame DSLR with shorter depth of field, yet close enough to the subject for the hindquarters to appear smaller as would be expected, again with a normal to possibly slight telephoto lens or zoom. Maybe my experience made the correct judgement, despite feeling unable to be certain of that diagnosis, or maybe it was understanding the current fashion for 'bokeh' at the point where smaller and smaller sensor sizes and shorter focal length lenses struggle to be able to create it through their increased depth of field. The lighting I couldn't fault, and I learned lighting for portraiture from Walter Nurnberg's books and the man himself, and he learned it from studying the old masters in oils. That I'm sure is certainly reliably programmable, as with the perspective, the mathematics of which cannot be complex.
The second thing that made it seem obvious was the unusual spontaneity and specific activity of a dog, not standing for a formal portrait, fur wet from emerging from the water, tongue out, albeit strange perhaps that the tip of its tail remained dry? Whatever. A bit unfair to the AI perhaps, as what it achieved in terms of lighting and photographic quality is impressive I think, and can only get better. Try asking it to create an action photo in some situation, and compare with a formal portrait taken by a competent photographer. That I suspect might be quite disturbing for our comfort zones. Have a look at this post:
https://miri.substack.com/p/tom-hanks-terminal-technocracy for what Hollywood is doing with AI, replacing actors!
And of course every such discussion as this one has the potential to become feeback training for AI to further perfect its mimicry/fakery. It chills me even more now that I realise why facebook has such an insatiable appetite for all our children's family photos, and what they and the corporate networks can build from them. Identity theft?
Just doan wanna give AI, whatever that is, human reliance across the board.
If ya doan use it will it atrophy? The human brain, I mean to say.
And what is that "center of decision-making" that is the human that needs to make timely decisions without AI?
Yes, you are an amazing enkyklios paidea. But it only sounds like AI "is". And AI is not you.
I don't think I would personally encourage "the Borg" -- or cyborg humans. Too much "access" or hackability by other humans. Like "whoever" gave permission to do nanoscale gene surgery on humanity or to install nanoscale self-assembling receivers? "Humanity" = 7 billion + human beings.
That violates the Nuremberg Code against human experimentation by fiat.
And then there is human history packed with fascists -- or those who only believe they are perfect, and therefore entitled to exercise power over others.
But yes, please do continue this endlessly interesting stream of thought.
I believe we can sense real from artificial. However with the increase of A.I that sensibility will be assaulted which is the game plan. The game plan is the synthetic becomes the real. That has been done all around us. Look at the food... Look at the vaccines.... Look at the pharma drugs which removed the herbs and nutrition to the wayside. It is all so around us. We just do not know the difference now. The picture on the left shows the real sparkle.
I doubt that computers can "learn" or be "trained" those words are suggesting a capability not there. Am I mistaken?
Nope. Ex-programmer here. It is all code, working storage, input and output. And any of those can be faulty, whether by accident or deliberately.
Thank you for the education.
Magritte's skeleton is quietly nodding.
..... ..... hmmm
Thank you, Jessica, for the great learning session, especially for the uninitiated like me. I wonder if AI can ever equal or reproduce some human experiences and senses. As AI learns everything digitally, there is much in the world that is not binary or off and on, which I don't believe AI can learn. Some things just need to be live or living experiences. As AI has no eyes, even given that it can break things down digitally, there are simply things it cannot see. How about hearing? Can AI pick up on the overtone series (harmonics) of a single tone coming from a stringed instrument. We can hear the overtone series as the note fades. AI can learn about it, but can it produce it. (Digitally produced or recorded music seems to lack the full experience). Can AI really know what we sense when we touch something? It has no fingers with skin and nerves.
Man's creations just do not and cannot equal those we have been given by God.