Replaced
Replaced
79 comments
-
-
Tangentially related: Oh boi I just love AI bros coming out of nowhere defending GenAI when nobody asked for their opinion. Wish more communities / instances would take a hard anti-AI stance and just get rid of them. It's not like anyone will make them see where they're wrong.
-
I've started adding 🤡 or 💩 tags to people's usernames when they can't pull their head out of their ass.
Gives me a heads up on what to dodge without falling victim to an overzealous admin wildly swinging the ban-hammer.
-
And you tag people's usernames, while not being an admin yourself, how? Lol we should have these tags in real life to help avoid narcissists! 😂
-
You mentioning tagging clowns just reminded me of someone I had tagged on my lemm.ee account for saying something phenomenally stupid. I decided to go back and retag him to find I already had tagged him again for another, different moronic thing.
-
-
-
I think the first page works all on its own. Whole thing is great tho!
-
I actually think the "it's soulless... FOR NOW" panel is pretty important.
People who believe in the value of human creativity have been pretty casual about saying that AI generated work isn't as good as work created by a person, but what happens if in another iteration or two it actually CAN produce "good" "art"? Like, what happens if it's cranking out screenplays and paintings that DO pass muster? We've got to be prepared for that possibility, and try to act now to make sure that our world is structured around preserving human dignity on its own merits. The existence of a faster work-doing machine shouldn't necessitate that all human workers must now starve.
-
A computer-generated "Van Gogh" is not art any more than a mass-produced coffee mug is artisanal, no matter how "realistic".
This has all happened before. Take photography. People thought it was the end of visual art. If anyone can take a photograph, why would anyone spend years learning to paint?
Artists answered by pushing the medium beyond the limits of realism. Impressionism. This did not make photographs go away. But when I see a picture of someone's cat, I don't usually go "art!" – even though 200 years ago the mere existence of a photorealistic picture would have implied very impressive artistry.
The work that clankers are very quickly taking over is that which does not require art. Visual filler. Lorem ipsum. Corporate communications. Out with artisans, in with industrial machinery. This is the same story that has already happened to almost every artisanal trade, from scribery to pottery to smithing. Visual artists and writers thought themselves exempt from the industrial revolution; they aren't. It will be a worsening socio-economic crisis. But it won't "end" art. Clankers definitionally cannot, and will never do art. Not until they gain a conscience of their own.
-
+100. I wish I could pin this.
That being said, I think AI Bro existentialism and singularity hype has a lot of people on particular edge, beyond what the camera and other past innovations triggered, since it's pushed at such high levels of our world. But (speaking a fervent local ML tinkerer), the proof is not in their puddin', as professional, foundational researchers would tell you as well. Not just because of technical limitations, but because corporate enshittification is already taking effect.
-
-
I think this idea misses the fundamental way that the transformer works on neural networks. The output can be useful, but the mechanism of arriving there is more about probability than creativity.
An LLM cannot create true art because it cannot experience feelings, it has no continuity of being. It can only replicate the artistic patterns it was trained on; those patterns can come from true art, and can be combined in unique ways, but the only real art is in the writing of the prompt and the data it was trained on.
It's like how the patterns of a kaleidoscope can make beautiful images, but all the creativity is in it's construction and how it's used.
We could conceivably extend the transformer model to include other aspects of thought, possibly even a consciousness capable of artistic expression, but it will take a lot of new work, it's not a place we can arrive by simply adding more power or additional training to our current models.
Almost all the algorithms used by modern AI were written decades ago, it's only usable now because compute power has made such huge gains. It will likely take many decades more to create true artificial consciousness.
-
What you're describing is Clarktech, technology sufficiently advanced to be indistinguishable from magic. We don't know remotely how to create an AI artist that can actually create original works of art with their own perspective, critique, and soul. A system like any we know how to design has to create art from what is essentially the averaging of the work of many artists. Everything they make is a work by committee. Any individual perspective is washed out in the generating process.
We simply don't have any idea how to create an AI that would exhibit the kind of individual perspective of a human artist. Until we at least have some plausible pathway for that, we might as well be arguing about what happens if it turns out magic is real.
-
what happens if it’s cranking out screenplays and paintings that DO pass muster?
It's inevitable. Eventually we will be able to ask for, and then refine, the perfect TV show for our particular tastes. Want 'Buffy' but set in the Fallout universe with Dumbledore and Boromir? Give it a minute and you'll have it.
-
It’s inevitable.
Nope. Think about the massive amount of computational grunt going into all these LLMs now, they're thrashing AI into every possible nook and cranny, desperate to find some place that makes actual profits. There's also a tremendous issue with gigo - AI learning on AI slop is never going to produce masterpieces.
Firmly in the dubious category here.
-
It is definitely possible to create that. The question is, will it ever be profitable, or cheap enough to be user made/controlled? I doubt it. Tech growth isn't just limited by what's possible, but also by what's practical.
-
Then human interest will move on. Maybe to video games, or social VR spaces... I dunno, but it's the same principle of, say, photography zapping the attention of photorealistic painting, and other things draining attention from photography, or TV zapping novels. See azer's comment above, worded much better than I can.
On the flip side, I think the more likely scenario is these models will always run off the rails super easy, and need humans to guide them...
Think how neat that is. What if an individual writer (and an artist helper?) could make a TV show without a mega corporate budget and production studio, maybe even on their own computer for free? What if fans could make and share TV? Think of what that's already doing to the video game space, and we are not that far from that with current tooling like Wan 2.2.
-
-
-
Not pictured: broke stenographers operating the rollercoaster in tears because their jobs were taken by computers long before the chatbots came to town.
(It's me, I am the stenographer :( )
-
I wish I could type as fast as you.
-
-
-
The problem isn't AI, it is capitalism.
I'd love for those artists to receive a Universal Basic Income so they can keep drawing whatever they want however they want. Don't even need to be paid for it.
Them making creative work is enough of a contribution to society. No need to put a monetary value on it.
-
Heavy statement to say to someone that would lose its life job over dystopian machines, I have friends that are in this cartoon, one with a kiddo. What to say to them ?
-
I'd say: It's your boss that fired you, not the tool.
-
Same we said to typesetters, switchboard operators, elevator drivers, milkmen, travel agents, video rental employees, lamplighters, computers (the job), horse farmers, coal miners, etc. You learn a new skill, you get a new job and carry on.
-
I'd say vote/rebel/protest for Universal Basic Income or any other form of economy where you aren't forced to work or die.
-
-
-
YouTube added the shittest, laziest AI generated category graphics to the app, leaving me thinking “fucking Google doesn’t have any spare money knocking around to spend on this?!”.
-
Gpt will probably replace a lot of jobs but creative ones it will not. Don't forget that it's a tool, it need input to "create". ...I hope
-
I don't think it will replace creatives for personal projects and requests. But in the souless corporate/business world it will definitely replace them. We already see it happening, even with gpt in its infancy.
-
-
printing press vs calligrapher
79 comments
AI should have been used to do work for us to give us more time for art. Not the other way around...
The flip side is that AI being able to create art democratizes art so that anyone with an idea can execute it. I don't need to have a steady hand to make a drawing of the idea I have and I don't need to be a software expert- I can describe what I want and what message I'm trying to convey and when the AI produces what I had imagined, I can share it with the world.
Or you could pick up a pencil and put it to paper, actually expressing what's in your soul through your own efforts. I know which one I'd prefer to look at.
Also, saying AI "Democratizes art" ignores several million years of people making art with whatever was on hand, whether that be 3D modeling software, or charcoal on a cave wall. Art has always been Democratic and Free; AI, notably, isn't.
Is having a for-profit company intermediating and generating all art really "democratizing" it?
AFAIK "democratizing" something doesn't simply mean "makes it easier". That ease is also only temporary. Once you're thoroughly deskilled and dependent upon it, that's when the subsidies will end.
democratise art?
that's the most stupid thing I've heard.
everyone can do art, grab a pencil and a paper, or clay, or a stick and a knife, or....
Doing art is practically free. you cant have anything more democratised than art.
AI is simply not art, it is inherently unable to do anything creative and only makes cheap soulless slop.
If it's used as a fancy brush, an artist can do amazing stuff with it, but the creativity and art still comes from the artist, not AI itself.
You misspelled plagiarism. Ai learned from stealing.
And as for art:
….
Actually , you know what? I’m not going to touch this. I’d rather watch you fail than help you learn via criticism. So You go head and call whatever you think you’re doing ‘art’ all you want.
No other real artist touch this one either. Save the criticism and lessons for real artists. Let this one fail on their own.
Beethoven composed music while deaf and you are complaining about not having steady hands. If you really want to make art, just start doing it. It really is that simple.
When I had a good idea for art I wanted for personal use I went to fiverr and paid someone to do it for me. AI is killing the already meager income streams of starving artists.
What does 'democratise art' even mean? It's not like everyone votes for a specific generated AI image.
Anyway, I think what you mean is Socialism, in terms of AI making 'skills' available for everyone.
But it's not. It's stealing your capability to learn and taking it for itself without paying you for your efforts. Every input you use trains the model. Even though you're not creating art, you're still creating a prompt and you should be paid for your labour.
It's already been said by the operators of this massive scam. They can only operate via theft.
Then the question is: whom does that favor more: people with good ideas or people with bad ideas? Of those two groups, which one was more likely to work hard and develop a talent?
nope. AI is producing what AI imagined. It is not some kind of magic brain reading machine and never will be. I'd rather see palsy-drawn shaky line stick figures than midjourney six finger abominations any day.
By choosing the path of least resistance you're cheating your own creativity and robbing the world of yet another human voice.
And training the machines to take other artists jobs.
Cute.
No it is not. Because at some point it is paywalled. That's not democraticed. That is blitzscaled.
Or at least a crappy version of it, for the low price more pollution and unemployment.
Democracy is about having your say. When you create the art yourself, that is you expressing yourself democratically. With AI, it's doing the talking for you.
Star Trek universe, anyone?
Time to collapse the system 😎