AI Art

[Black Elk]

Captain Seven was reppin' this yesterday...

Jeri Ryan on Instagram: "“Last, best, & final” my ass. WE WILL DECIDE. This is PERFECTION from @hereisnatalia"

2,380 likes, 76 comments - jerilryan on November 7, 2023: "“Last, best, & final” my ass. WE WILL DECIDE. This is PERFECTION from @hereisnatalia"

www.instagram.com

The one Natalie Costellanos made - It's hilarious! Probably it's easier to embed with twitter but I can't bring myself to use that one or refer to it by its silly new name.

As 'the Public' we need to slam closed our pocket books and reject this nonsense categorically, every time they try to push it, and support the creatives who are resisting this as an inevitable future. Where Art is concerned Ai needs to become a scarlet letter (or scarlet dipthong I guess lol) so they'll begin to see it as a badge not worth wearing. Save a buck, doing this, lose 5 on the backend cause it pisses everyone off! Those sorts of tactics. I hate to be all zero sum about anything, but we got a whole industry on strike over this issue, so scabbin' right now is even worse form. Visual artists have been in virtual lockstep for over a year now. Actors are united in opposition. The big dogs still trying to ignore it cause they think this is their cash cow, and not a bull that's about to break literally all the china. Need to take stand sometimes hehe

 

[Nimran]

I don’t understand why people pay AI ‘artists’ money. With those same tools, you could make them yourself for free, lol! If you want actual, authentic art, though, you should absolutely pay the very real artist.

 

[mlnevese]

I don’t understand why people pay AI ‘artists’ money. With those same tools, you could make them yourself for free, lol! If you want actual, authentic art, though, you should absolutely pay the very real artist.

I think it's more of being paid to know how to ask to obtain a certain result. But yes, anyone can do beautiful stuff as you learn to add conditions and rules to a prompt. Even my 7 years old does some fun stuff with Roblox and some cartoons he watches.

 

[Antimatter]

The current big scandal with OpenAI:

Hundreds of OpenAI employees threaten to resign and join Microsoft

The situation at OpenAI is getting even more dicey.

www.theverge.com

 

[O_Bruce]

The thing with AI generated images is that, art, be it illustration, making comics, painting, no matter, is a career path chosen by very specific people, usually driven by passion. People who worked over their skills for years, dealing with and overcoming various issues, all while being generally underappreciated and underpaid by people I affectionately call "normies". Artists don't deal with all this shit just to be replaced by a technology, especially if the database of said technology is created on millions of copyrighted work taken without artists' consent and with no compensation at all.

What's worrying about AI technology isn't "machines taking over" angle. What's worrying is an endgame of human lives being fairly automated, redundant, pointless and unhealthy in the long term. The natural long-term consequence of making skills, knowledge and problem-solving capabilities redundant (after all, AI can do shit for you), is a generation or generations of undeveloped people who can't do anything and do not inspire to be anything. This is a natural result of reducing/eliminating struggle and meaning in life - people need eustress to function properly. If you think I'm exaggerating, take a note of what is done even without AI. For years already, you can take a look at any social media platfrom and see people exaggerating minor issues to absurd degrees or straight up making up new problems, preferring to build their self-esteem on traits they have no control over instead on what they do, what they inspire to, what they achieved. Additionally, their online functionality is heavily automated by algorithms, reducing the need to curate the content they are exposed to, creating worthless echo chambers. All AI technology is going to do is make those issues worse.

While I acknowledge that AI can be used for something good, I'm also not naive and won't be kidding myself. Most often than not, its use is rotten to the core. Deep fakes, spreading misinformation, creating porn of people without their consent, taking away people's jobs and not replacing them with anything. Scamming people.

People's abillity to create a technology doesn't make said technology worth creating and continuing to rely on it.

 

[m7600]

I want to see AI technology in areas like farming, storage and transportation. If you could use AI to automate those areas, then food would be free. And if you could also automate the production of clothes and houses, then you wouldn't need to work, which means you'd be free to make art all day or whatever suits your fancy.

 

[O_Bruce]

And yet art of all things being automated. It really says it all, doesn't it?

I also think it is naive to think stuff will be free when automated. Production of anything requires some costs, which means the product will need to cost something.

 

[OrlonKronsteen]

I want to see AI technology in areas like farming, storage and transportation. If you could use AI to automate those areas, then food would be free. And if you could also automate the production of clothes and houses, then you wouldn't need to work, which means you'd be free to make art all day or whatever suits your fancy.

Once again, job losses. And nothing will be free - it’s just going to cost more and more. Grocery prices haven’t dropped with the advent of self checkout.

 

[m7600]

Production of anything requires some costs

Not if what is costs is automated as well.

Once again, job losses.

If food, clothes, and every other product is free due to automation, why would you even need a job?

And nothing will be free - it’s just going to cost more and more.

Why would it cost anything if it's automated?

Grocery prices haven’t dropped with the advent of self checkout.

Because self checkout isn't full automation of farming, storage and transportation.

 

[O_Bruce]

@m7600
Let's pretend everything you said is automated. What does that automation need? Power. Electricity, to be more specific. Electricity isn't free. Therefore, no automation is ever going to be free. Money don't grow on trees, btw.

The other thing is, in a situation where no person can work due to everything being automated... Look at social media nowadays to see what lack of purpose, direction, struggle and plain boredom does to people. If you think that by removing need to work will result of people being productive on their interests or passions, then you're dead wrong.

 

[m7600]

Electricity isn't free.

Solar, wind, and water power, my friend. Free electricity if done right.

If you think that by removing need to work will result of people being productive on their interests or passions, then you're dead wrong.

Prove it. That's just a premise that you're stating. I'll simply deny it until you provide evidence. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[O_Bruce]

Solar, wind, and water power, my friend. Free electricity if done right.

Prove it. That's just a premise that you're stating. I'll simply deny it until you provide evidence. The burden of proof is on you.

1. Ah yes, because maintaining infrastructure to generate energy from sun, wind or water is certainly going to be free, both in term of resources, money and labour. And even more certainly, efficient and sufficient to cover humanity's needs.

2. Basic psychology, my friend. Have you heard about "Mouse utopia" or similar experiments? In advance - excuse me for speaking of top of my head. You can provide a mice population literally everything they need, make their life so easy, full of pleasure, instant gratification, unlimited access to sexual partners and so on and so on. The result of all of that was that in time, the population of mice not only became null to all that good thing, it also lost the drive to do anything, including self-preservation. Now, humans aren't mice and vice versa, and we absolutely don't live in such a utopia (and conducting such experiments on humans would be extremely unethical), so it can't ever be verified to be 1-1 comparison. But, with the years of observation, I can easily tell where things are going. Social media are the best example of people like that. Little intentionality in their actions, driven by algorithms, little thought, seeking instant gratification, their nervous systems being so bombarded with dopamine they become null to good things they have. Them developing personality issues, become narcissistic. Arguing over petty shit, blowing problems out of proportion, inventing a fictional problems. For pete's sake, just 15 years ago to become noteworthy you did something challenging. Nowadays, you eat tidepods or literally brag about shit you stole. That's dumbing down of humanity, and that's without AI doing everything for us.

Now think about the logical conclusion. If people act so dumb with very little going on in their lives, imagine what happens when there won't be anything for them to do at all.

 

[m7600]

1. Ah yes, because maintaining infrastructure to generate energy from sun, wind or water is certainly going to be free, both in term of resources, money and labour. And even more certainly, efficient and sufficient to cover humanity's needs.

The infrastructure's construction as well as its maintenance could be automated. It could quite well cover all of humanities needs, if we reach stage 1 of the Kardashev scale.

2. Basic psychology, my friend. Have you heard about "Mouse utopia" or similar experiments? In advance - excuse me for speaking of top of my head. You can provide a mice population literally everything they need, make their life so easy, full of pleasure, instant gratification, unlimited access to sexual partners and so on and so on. The result of all of that was that in time, the population of mice not only became null to all that good thing, it also lost the drive to do anything, including self-preservation. Now, humans aren't mice and vice versa, and we absolutely don't live in such a utopia (and conducting such experiments on humans would be extremely unethical), so it can't ever be verified to be 1-1 comparison. But, with the years of observation, I can easily tell where things are going. Social media are the best example of people like that.

Nah, I'm not buying it. This is a false equivalence fallacy. You said it yourself, mice aren't people. They have no concept of money or labor.

Social media are the best example of people like that. Little intentionality in their actions, driven by algorithms, little thought, seeking instant gratification, their nervous systems being so bombarded with dopamine they become null to good things they have. Them developing personality issues, become narcissistic. Arguing over petty shit, blowing problems out of proportion, inventing a fictional problems. For pete's sake, just 15 years ago to become noteworthy you did something challenging. Nowadays, you eat tidepods or literally brag about shit you stole. That's dumbing down of humanity, and that's without AI doing everything for us.

Those behaviors could be due to any number of different causes. You're stating that the cause is that they don't have a job. And even if they don't have a job, correlation does not equal causation. Show me a research paper that supports your conclusion, specifically one published in a peer-reviewed journal like Nature or Science. A false equivalence with mice won't cut it.

 

[O_Bruce]

The infrastructure's construction as well as its maintenance could be automated. It could quite well cover all of humanities needs, if we reach stage 1 of the Kardashev scale.

We are going to into comedic territory at this point. I could keep pointing out things requiring costs and maintenance and you'll just respond that it will also be automated. This will go on into inifity without fail. All you need to realize your mistake here is to start thinking more than one step at a time.

Nah, I'm not buying it. This is a false equivalence fallacy. You said it yourself, mice aren't people. They have no concept of money or labor.

If I told you that mice and people are equal, you'd have a worthless parody of a point here. I EXPLICTLY stated this is NOT 1-to-1 comparison. What mice are, however, are fairly intelligent and social mammals. Humans are even more complex, intelligent and social mammals. Like it or not, biology works on the same principles in both species. That includes things like reactivity to stimuli, libido, and motivation - on the very basic level on how that works anyway. Biology doesn't change its rules just because one organism is more psychologically complex and intelligent than the other.

Those behaviors could be due to any number of different causes

There's certainly more to this, true. In psychology, it is utterly foolish to assume there's one case to everything.

They have no concept of money or labor.

True. But animals, especially those who live in the wild are under constant pressure to survive. Be it finding things to eat, water to drink, shelter, running from predators, finding a mate, and so on and so on. Humans don't have to fight for their survival every day - we substituted that with working. You work, and you get the money as compensation for your work. You use money to buy goods and services you need to survive and for comfort/luxury.

I'll add one jab to that. You don't seem to know how money works and the meaning of work yourself. Funny.

You're stating that the cause is that they don't have a job

You don't have the slightest idea what my statement is. It goes much further than "lol, that's what happens when you don't have a job". Think more than one step ahead.

Show me a research paper that supports your conclusion, specifically one published in a peer-reviewed journal like Nature or Science.

Reasons why I won't bother with that:
1. I treat this conversation like that one with a random stranger I meet somewhere in public. I am talking out of the top of my head with general knowledge I acquired years ago while I was studying psychology for about 5 years. I won't be searching for relevant papers in conversations like this, especially when I have something to do.
2. You don't have any kind of proof to your statement yourself. Even if I apply point 1 principles to you as well, all I have is a person whose outlook is very short-sighted. Regardless of what I point out specifically, you'd just respond with something similar to "it will also be automated", without a hint of a thought of the larger picture, and therefore without considering that somewhere along this chain of automation, something can go wrong. Or that there might be problems with the implementation of said automation.
3. Your reaction to such a paper would be just another "nah", therefore wasting my time.

We cannot be friends.

 

[Antimatter]

I can see the merit in both points of view. Thanks for sharing them, you two! The intent is not to win an argument (you can't do that online), but to share your view and make others think. You've succeded in that. And no obligation to be friends, just being in the same room and talking is more than enough.

It would be better for me that multitudes of men should disagree with me rather than that I, being one, should be out of harmony with myself. ~Socrates

 

[m7600]

We are going to into comedic territory at this point. I could keep pointing out things requiring costs and maintenance and you'll just respond that it will also be automated. This will go on into inifity without fail. All you need to realize your mistake here is to start thinking more than one step at a time.

It doesn't go on to infinity, because AI technology already exists. Some professions are starting to be automatized, such as illustration and literature. The technology is there, eventually it will extend to other areas beyond art. And it's slowly doing that. Therefore, it's not far fetched to see it being used in areas like farming, for example.

If I told you that mice and people are equal, you'd have a worthless parody of a point here. I EXPLICTLY stated this is NOT 1-to-1 comparison. What mice are, however, are fairly intelligent and social mammals. Humans are even more complex, intelligent and social mammals. Like it or not, biology works on the same principles in both species. That includes things like reactivity to stimuli, libido, and motivation - on the very basic level on how that works anyway. Biology doesn't change its rules just because one organism is more psychologically complex and intelligent than the other.

Humans and trees also share some biological traits. Both of them are multicellular organisms, both of them have DNA and RNA, both of them metabolize, etc. But there are many important biological traits that they don't share: trees don't have a brain, or lungs, or a stomach, etc. When you compare humans to mice, you are correct in saying that they share several traits in common. But you're not emphasizing enough their biological differences. Rodent brains and human brains are significantly different, their endocrine systems are significantly different, their interactions with other individuals of the same species are significantly different as well, etc. In a nutshell, mice don't have anything that resembles culture, while humans are culturally influenced just as much as they're biologically influence. So, your comparison is a false equivalence fallacy.

True. But animals, especially those who live in the wild are under constant pressure to survive. Be it finding things to eat, water to drink, shelter, running from predators, finding a mate, and so on and so on.

Amoebas and other microbes have to do the same thing. That doesn't mean that amoebas and humans are comparable when it comes to work and leisure, since amoebas have no concept of these things. Neither do mice. Again, a false equivalence fallacy.

I'll add one jab to that. You don't seem to know how money works and the meaning of work yourself. Funny.

That's an ad hominem fallacy. I actually do work, and have been working for many years, in exchange for money, yes. But even if I didn't have a job right now, or even if I never had a job to begin with, that doesn't mean that what I'm saying is false. This is why an ad hominem fallacy is not a valid argument. Insulting me, or assuming negative things about me, does not entail that I'm wrong.

You don't have the slightest idea what my statement is.

Then make your statement explicit instead of being cryptic.

You don't have any kind of proof to your statement yourself.

Because the burden of proof is not on me, it's on you, as per Russell's teapot.

Your reaction to such a paper would be just another "nah", therefore wasting my time.

You don't know what my reaction would be or what I would say.

We cannot be friends.

Why not? I'm friends with a lot of people that have different beliefs, including people who have completely different political and ideological beliefs.

 

[mlnevese]

This is the kind of rat our resident Krogan is talking about. In the picture we can see Tiny the last time it escaped dimensional containment in the basement... I think it would just be fair to let you know.

 

[m7600]

The intent is not to win an argument (you can't do that online),

My intent is not to win an argument.

if settling a score ever becomes the purpose

I have no score to settle.

 

[mlnevese]

Ah but nobody would dare to harm the little cutie.

Did you ask an AI to make a picture of a dread rat?

 

[Nimran]

It’s also worth pointing out that some people like to work. Maybe not retail workers, or fast food workers, or other workers who deal with shitty people on a regular basis, but if the work environment is good and healthy, and the work is fulfilling, people can enjoy it.