this one goes out to the arts & humanities

AI is going to destroy art the same way Photoshop, or photography, or pre-made tubes of paints, destroyed art. It's a tool, it helps people take the idea in their head and put it in the world. And it lowers the barrier to entry, now you don't need years of practice in drawing technique to bring your ideas to life, you just need ideas.

If AI gets to a point that it can give us creative, original, art that sparks emotion in novel ways...well we probably also made a super intelligent AI and our list of problems is much different than today.

Tech bros are not really techie themselves as they are really just Wall Street bros with tech as their product. Most claim they can code, but if they were coders they would be coding. They are not coders, they are businessmen through and through.who just happen to sell tech.

There are plenty of things you can shit on AI art for

But it is neither badly approximately, nor can a student produce such work in less than a minute.

This feels like the other end of the extreme of the tech bros

I work in AI. LLM's are cool and all, but I think it's all mostly hype at this stage. While some jobs will be lost (voice work, content creation) my true belief is that we'll see two increases:

1. The release of productivity tools that use LLM's to help automate or guide menial tasks.

2. The failure of businesses that try to replicate skilled labour using AI.

In order to stop point two, I would love to see people and lawmakers really crack down on AI replacing jobs, and regulating the process of replacing job roles with AI until they can sufficiently replace a person. If, for example, someone cracks self-driving vehicles then it should be the responsibility of owning companies and the government to provide training and compensation to allow everyone being "replaced" to find new work. This isn't just to stop people from suffering, but to stop the idiot companies that'll sack their entire HR department, automate it via AI, and then get sued into oblivion because it discriminated against someone.

I think approximation is the right word here. It’s pretty cool and all and I’m looking forward how it will develop. But it’s mostly a fun toy.

I’m stoked for the moment the tech bros understand, that an AI is way better at doing their job than it is at creating art.

they're misunderstanding the reasoning for spending billions.

the reason to spend all the money to approximate is so we can remove arts and humanities majors altogether.. after enough approximation yield similar results to present day chess programs which regularly now beat humans and grand masters. their vocation is doomed to the niche, like most of humanity, eventually.

I just love the idjits who think not showing empathy to people AI bros are trying to put out of work will save them when the algorithms come for their jobs next

When LeopardsEatingFaces becomes your economic philosophy

Turing Incompleteness is a pathway to many powers the Computer Scientists would consider incalculable.

Matthew Dow Smith, whomever the fuck that is, has a sophisticated delusion about what's actually going on and he's incorporated it into his persecution complex. Not impressed.

Yeah, no.

First AI right now can create very decent images in seconds for basically free, and it only will get better.

Second, AI can do much more than that: translation, Explaining a text in simpler words, help write code, semantic search... Creating poems about armadillos and talking like a pirate are fun novelties, but not the goals.

Honestly people are trying to desperately to automate physical labor to. The problem is the machines don't understand the context of their work which can cause problems. All the work of AI is a result of trying to make a machine that can. The art and humanities is more a side project

I propose that we treat AI as ancillas, companions, muses, or partners in creation and understanding our place in the cosmos.

While there are pitfalls in treating the current generation of LLMs and GANs as sentient, or any AI for that matter, there will be one day where we must admit that an artificial intelligence is self-aware and sentient, practically speaking.

To me, the fundamental question about AI, that will reveal much about humanity, is philosophical as much as it is technical: if a being that is artificially created, has intelligence, and is functionally self-aware and sentient, does it have natural rights?

Most of Arts will be automated away. Stable Diffusion is just the beginning.

If you think arts and humanities are useless, you probably lack an imagination.

Like completely.

I won't say you're useless, because simple minded grunts are needed.

Humanity wouldn't exist without the arts.

AI art tools democratize art by empowering those who weren't born with the affinity, talent or privilege to become artists themselves. They allow regular people the freedom of expression in new dimensions. They are amazing.

They are not made to replace human art. They are made to supplement it. The "artists" who feel threatened and offended at its existence are probably not very good at their art.

I'd love to see some data on the people who believe that AI fundamentally can't do art and the people who believe that AI is an existential threat to artists.

Anecdotally, there seems to be a large overlap between the adherents of what seem to be mutually exclusive positions and I wish I understood that better.

Some bad course cope right here don't let the philosophy grads see this

Chill, tech bros are spending billions to oust every unmarketable degree and skillset.

Also unmarketable ≠ "useless"