Opposition to AI images is purely political friend/enemy division. If you had access to the Ghibli generator tech 3 years ago and didn't tell them about it, every single person who says "AI slop" now and thinks they're being principled would have loved it.
This. The crazy fact of the matter is the over-saturation of AI-generated content has resulted in the complete trivialization of the technology as a whole.
Go back to as recently as 2010, fuck it, 2015 and show people how this tech works. How you can take any photograph and infinitely re-synthesize it. How you can make fanart of anything, including porn, in the blink of an eye and virtually zero effort on your part. You would be venerated like a God. Your invention would be worth 8 - 9 digits at the very least. Everyone would be awed, and many would become hopelessly addicted.
Granted it sucked but Photoshop has had "content aware fill", the precursor to what we do now with a button-press, since CS5, released 15 fucking years ago.
You’re not wrong, but you guys are also getting conned into cheering on the like increasing third worldification of the US to own the libs. Once AI actually works as designed the efficiency lies in replacing your software engineers with a team of hr lady “prompt engineers” to use it and then a handful of H1Bs to QA the output. You’ll always need specialists like you gotta pay folks to use excel today. There are zero productivity improvements, it’s just ruthless corporate cost cutting.
I work menial labor in a factory, I'm just drinking in the catharsis that the faggots seething about AI replacing their jobs now were, just a few years ago, gloating that I would soon lose my job to automation.
It is hilarious, redditors have been giddy for a decade about how blue collar work will totally be 100% automated in the future and everything will be cheaper and we will live just like star trek!!!
As it turns out computers are better at writing articles in a computer or generating images in a computer than fixing a burst pipe or driving a semi truck.
Working in frontier tech is always high risk high reward. Computer programmers don't deaerve to have their jobs preserved in the face of new tech any more or less than cotton gin gear manufacturers did. Which is to say, not at all.
Even now you will have people sharing images and loving it, but if you realize it's AI and point it out they immediately performatively hate it.
It's like with Unity games, it's trash when it's just a marketplace asset flip but that doesn't mean every game made with that engine is trash. For a really great AI image you wouldn't be able to tell either way.
So is 99% of all so-called art anyway. The internet has been stuffed to bursting with mediocre scribblers demanding hundreds of dollars for "commissions" for years now, and it's the kind of crap middle schoolers can draw. And they are also the exact same damn people who deride, derogate and destroy real art all across the planet.
AI grinding those people to dust? Good. Bring on the tears. These wannabe Bohemian fucks might finally get real jobs for once.
This is the real Pandora's box that most people aren't considering, but then they weren't thinking creatures to begin with. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together should be alarmed at the prospect of what this is going to do in terms of destroying our ability to record history and accurately model reality.
These days teachers prepare their lessons using AI tools. Students cheat, and hand in homework generated by AI tools. Then Teachers use AI tools to assist in their marking and detect the use of AI tools.
We wrote prose and essays in high school so we could learn the skills of being able to read, apply critical analysis and then write well crafted and coherently on the subject.
Now we can have AI voices read it to us, then fat finger a prompt to have a large language model write about it.
AI is just about at genius level for rationalization. If you give it a set of absolute facts, it will craft everything it produces around those fixed points. Those immutable assumptions can be anything: George Washington was a proud black man; Austin Texas is the greatest city on earth. Islam was right about women.
Students outsourcing the labor of learning facts and skills will catch on faster than viral Tic Tock videos. We will be raising a generation of drooling morons that believe anything their phone tells them. History will be whatever our silicon valley overlords say it should be.
I mean we already are there. Half the gay shit the people on this entire website believe is fake. And it doesn't even need AI, people believe what supports their opinions.
Do you know how many times I've heard conspiracy faggotry about the Vegas shooting that uses an argument like "OMG are we supposed to believe he removed hurricane grade windows by himself"?
Hurricane grade glass isn't a rating. In order to determine how strong the glass was youd need to actually source the glass contractor and what was purchased and get the technical specifications for it.
Do you think even one fucking person, anywhere, ever, has even attempted to find out what sort of glass was on the Mandaly Bay? Lol fuck no. These people just invent gay fucking shit and they think "hurricane grade" sounds right, and it fools similar idiots who also 'want to believe', and just like that it becomes "fact".
They even released the video of him in the lobby and elevator pushing a luggage cart with like twenty giant bags on it.
And he was paying for an expensive room, they aren't going to question it.
And it's Vegas, a city with tons of industrial conventions all the time, it's entirely within reason for a guy to have tons of bags if it contains product for a trade show.
Am I saying something about him didn't stink? No, if his whole plan was a shooting, to a rational person, his setup made no sense. Too many rifles all with odd configurations (no irons or optics on many, like they come from the factory). But again we're talking "to a rational mind".
But I've always been skeptical of nearly all conspiracy theories, and it really is as simple as this: Treat every conspiracy theory with the same level of detail and skepticism as the theorists treat the official story.
Remember Harrison Deal, the guy in Georgia? If the official story was that his car was blown up by a bomb, everyone would be talking about how the damage on the car doesn't look like a bomb, there was no debris field, there was strange damage that "folded" the Jeep, and the bodywork was still attached. People would compare it to pictures of real vehicle bombings showing pieces of bodywork sprayed all over the place.
In other words "nothing about this looks like a bomb". But because the official story was a car crash, suddenly it became a bomb even though the damage makes no sense for it to be a bomb (along with other things like inventing the lie that "the engine was 300 yards away", but you can see the front end of the vehicle was basically intact).
Conspiracy: "GARY WEBB WAS KILLED BECAUSE HE BROKE IRAN-CONTRA!"
Reality: Congress is who broke Iran Contra. Webb wrote a book years later. And he died years after the book. Also you can still buy the book... Who the fuck covers up a story that's already public?
Conspiracy: "MICHAEL HASTINGS WAS KILLED BECAUSE HE WAS GOING TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR!"
Reality: Hastings was a shitlib who sandbagged a very popular General who was critical of Obama and the Iraq war and got him fired. Both Congress and the British Parliament broke the story of the Iraq Dossier. And just like Webb, he wrote the books after the story was already public, he died long after they were written, and you can still buy them.
Also in the cases of both, not a single person who knew them really doubted the official narrative. Webb was in a downward spiral for years and his life was falling apart. Everyone who knew Hastings suggested he had a substance abuse problem.
The dumbest is "Chris Cornell was going to write a story exposing Hollywood pedophiles". Lmao literally never, not once, did he ever even suggest that that was anything he was doing.
The one conspiracy I think I do believe is I think a lot of these types of conspiracies were seeded by the government because of who they target and how they responded to them.
If you're a government and you have a large demographic of perpetual malcontents who are heavily armed and constantly talking about revolution and civil war, but you can't just round them up and gas them, what do you do?
Drive them insane.
MKULTRA was real but every conspiracy theorist thinks they're somehow immune to it. They think all the narrative control weapons are all targeting liberals, and they're "too smart" to fall for the ones that target the right.
So these people are not just something of a powder keg liability, but they're also very gullible, very dumb, and very paranoid.
Fill their heads with insane bullshit. Make them waste years upon years of their lives obsessing over worthless events nobody cares about that will never have a payoff. Bonus points: use narratives that make them believe the government is literally an angry omnipotent God, with the power and will to do anything they want, including controlling hurricanes and earthquakes.
Literally shit that was Biblical in nature they now attribute to government. Government is God to them.
And how do you fight God?
You don't. You can't. Why even bother? Don't go outside or they'll drone strike you. Don't make friends and organize because they are all feds. Just sit at home complaining on the internet, accomplishing nothing, while your age and BMI gradually climb. Don't vote or run for office because elections are fake. Don't try to join the system to change it from the inside because all your friends will hate you and call you a fed traitor.
The most tragic is this: right wingers are mad about Ruby Ridge. Timothy McVeigh blew up a huge VBIED to protest Ruby Ridge. Right wingers immediately and forever call him a fed. Lmao.
Even if he was a fed, isn't it better to take credit for it even just as a symbolic gesture of your frustration and what you could be capable of?
it's another method of creating a vision you have in your head.
Except when it's a literal copy of something that previously existed. Tools actually allow you to express anything. These models, by virtue of how they're built, can't.
and the entire idea that reality wasn't like that will be erased
Except for all the primary and secondary evidence that runs counter to it. As if forgeries are a new problem.
Or do you mean literally erased. Which you'd have to do because people aren't as simple as you portray them to be. In which case the hallucinations of "AI" don't matter, it's just the erasure of history. Why is why that's the centerpiece of Orwell's 1984.
In 30 years, everyone will believe
You're confusing what we have now as AI. You have a weak grasp on the technology if you think a 30 year timeline is realistic to get from here to there. You've been beguiled and stultified by bad technology and have fallen into this midwit's trap. You mispredict the future badly and entirely at your own peril.
This is why the spend billions on the technology. Is so that you self select yourself out of a job and cede ground to them. They've won your slavery without even a fight.
Except when it's a literal copy of something that previously existed.
It isn't a copy. That isn't how that works. Deep Learning Neural Networks don't contain a library of images.
They are trained with a library of images, which is then taken away.
Convolutional Neural Networks play the Hot and Cold game for head-pats.
The training environment gives the Neural Network a prompt. For example "Draw a squid."
The NN does its best to draw a squid. The result is compared to one of the training images from the library of squid images. The NN is awarded head-pats accordingly.
This repeats thousands or millions of times.
A well trained AI can do things like drawing a well known character as though they were a squid which will combine their ability to satisfy both sets of criteria at the same time.
Like it or not, that image has never been created before.
That's not a serious description and demonstrates a poor grasp on the underlying technology. It's guided recursive perturbation of noise. Until that noise looks enough like something it's seen before to become classified as the same.
Anyone else would call this copying with a little bit of randomness added in. You should really dig a little deeper here.
Anyways try the exclusive case. Have it draw something that has never been classified before. You can look around for items of antiquity or lost cultures and see how it fares. Since it can't do these things it obviously only can do things it has seen and have been classified. So it can only reproduce what it has been trained on. This is obvious.
which will combine their ability to satisfy both sets of criteria at the same time.
Wow, so it combined two copies into one thing? That's still copying.
It is vaguely impressive that preturbative systems are effective at quickly finding approximate solutions. Which is why "satisfying both sets of criteria" means you get 7 fingered hands and other oddities expressed in the image. Add more criteria for more fun.
You're really just playing Monte Carlo on a stolen deck of classifications. To be fair, Google did pay a bunch of africans $2/day to tag the images, so there is some originality in the database, but very little.
that image has never been created before.
Fortunately that's now how copyright works or how copying is defined in the eyes of the law.
Anyone else would call this copying with a little bit of randomness added in.
Yeah, so we are having an issue of semantics here. We are using different meanings of the word copy. Further, I think you know what the actual definition is, and you are arguing in bad faith.
If a human artist looks at a drawing or an image, then makes a copy of it by hand, it is substantially different. This can be sold as original art under a couple conditions. I won't get into the conditions here, because I don't think they matter and you don't care.
If the artwork is different enough that it won't be confused for commercial purposes, it doesn't infringe on copyright.
Moreover, there are things that can not be covered by copyright. These include styles and formats. There has been a Chinese version of the Australian show "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire." Which in turn is a copy of the CBS show "The $64,000 Question" from 1955, because you can't copyright show formats.
You also can't copyright procedures, rules or recipes. You also can't copyright an artistic school or style.
So, you are conflating the term "duplicate" with the term "copy". Duplicates are covered by copyright, as they are an exact reproduction of an artistic work.
A rabbi crawling out of a drain grate in the style of Studio Ghibli absolutely is not.
To take a photographic image and then redraw that into a new picture in an entirely different style is not a copy. It certainly isn't a duplicate.
To combine two images into a fusion of artistic representations into an image that has never existed before is not a copy.
Have it draw something that has never been classified before.
You are correct. A convolutional neural network will not be able to generate images that match criteria outside its training data set.
But you can't speak Chinese without every having learned it. So what? What does that have to do with anything at all?
Your major complaint seems to be that Convolutional Neural Networks are not, in fact, people. You got me! They have less neurons than a flatworm. They are certainly less complex than the nervous system of a garden slug. They get things wrong and draw stupid shit all the time.
That doesn't mean they are a Xerox machine. They have a different function and are really good at certain tasks, especially of classification. They are very scalable. They are not thinking machines in any sense of the word "thinking".
Further, I think you know what the actual definition is, and you are arguing in bad faith.
Really?
If a human artist looks at a drawing or an image, then makes a copy of it by hand, it is substantially different.
Transformative is the standard. And it can be adjudicated. Pure copies by hand are called forgeries and are not legal to sell. I don't know why you think a hand copy is immediately substantially transformative when there's centuries of case law saying precisely the opposite and offering real tests to be used in making the determination.
You also can't copyright an artistic school or style.
If I can recognize the style then it's obvious you copied it.
So, you are conflating the term "duplicate" with the term "copy".
No, you are, in an effort to argue in bad faith. The tool makes copies. Sometimes those copies are so bad they actually do violate copyright. That they can be transformative does not relieve them of being copies. This is obvious.
Your previous example seemed to rely on the fact you could combine a known character with octopus parts and call that a "new work." The point being, even copyright law, with all it's exceptions, would call this a violation. You can't draw Iron Man with squid legs and call it a new character.
That doesn't mean they are a Xerox machine.
Effectively they are. So are humans. The difference is humans are additionally capable of creating entirely new things. These toys cannot. They will not. There is no upgrade to make them capable of it. There is no obvious technological path from the current implementation to a new one which is equally capable.
This thing can only copy. To get back on point your 30 year timeline is bogus. If you understand this technology so well then you should see this clearly.
Guy, when you enter a prompt into a Convolutional Neural Network, you can't point to the work that it is coping; because it isn't copying a single work, or even a couple. The NN is relying on the complex interactions of neurons to identify patterns within its output and to adjust those to make them better match a gestalt of that training.
You know this. You tried to correct my original response to point this out to me.
When you duplicate an image with a Xerox machine, or even a person visually copying an artwork by looking at it, you can point to the piece being copied. "There it is, that is the original."
Duplication is prohibited under copywrite law; but style isn't. Drawing Spongebob Squarepants in the style of Vincent Van Gough is a creative, transformational work even if you can recognize both the character and the style.
There may be issues about selling or distributing that work, because Spongebob is covered by trademark etc., but there is no question about the transformative and artistic nature of the piece. Juxtaposing the vapid childrens' character and one of the most famous Dutch painters is, in itself, an artistic statement.
No, you cannot copyright an art style. While you can copyright specific, original works of art, such as paintings, drawings, or sculptures, copyright law does not protect styles or general ideas.
I get that you fucking hate Neural Network generated art. I understand, but you are just making shit up to win arguments. You are demonstrably wrong, which is worse because you know you are wrong, and you don't give a fuck.
Every day we make fun of Neo-Marxist fuckheads for making up their own facts, and here you are doing it to win an internet slap fight.
Even if you manage to declare victory by utterly distorting terms (a leftist tactic) you will have convinced no one of your point of view.
There are really, really good reasons to distrust Convolutional Neural Networks and Large Language Models. I've given a few very good ones in other posts in this topic. "lol; they are just Xerox machines!' isn't one.
Oh, and BTW, I've never given a 30 year prediction. That was someone else.
AI image creators are fantastic for whipping up character icons for RPG's. I don't care if they're kind of wonky, search engines fucking suck now, and I'm not paying hundreds of dollars and waiting several weeks to commission anything.
On purpose. The same companies that own this technology own search engines. They broke the algorithm and destroyed result quality on purpose. Their only metric now is "time spent on Google." They don't care about the rest anymore.
and I'm not paying hundreds of dollars and waiting several weeks to commission anything.
For your.. rpg character icon? Is that like a huge market or something?
For your.. rpg character icon? Is that like a huge market or something?
No clue. Just listing what my options are if I want artwork for something. It's either steal it online, commission it, use AI... or learn to draw myself. Of those, AI is the easiest.
Art is either expensive, stolen, mass-produced, or AI.
If you want custom original work cheap, it needs to be AI. AI is the only thing able to make novel concepts out of existing well-known ideas anywhere near affordable: in example, "Iron Man drawn in the Disgaea anime art style doing Naruto hand-jutsus while in a temple made of bones" has never, EVER been made by anyone, it is a never-having-occurred-before novel idea of existing ideas. It's a couple minutes work for an AI, or probably a $100 commission from an artist if you want color.
If your idea already exists in its current form entirely, then AI is bad at it compared to cheap labor who can steal it, trace it, or mass-produce it. "Draw Iron Man in an action pose, no background", in example. You'd be fighting the AI the entire way wanting to make the image more complex, but a basic artist could easily find a comic, trace the image, steal and claim credit, and make a small paycheck.
If your idea already exists in its current form entirely, then AI is bad at it compared to cheap labor who can steal it, trace it, or mass-produce it. "Draw Iron Man in an action pose, no background", in example. You'd be fighting the AI the entire way wanting to make the image more complex, but a basic artist could easily find a comic, trace the image, steal and claim credit, and make a small paycheck.
Yep. AI is useful in this case as well, just to indicate certain features you'd like to the artist.
Good art is not cheap at all when factoring in opportunity cost of time. Not to mention if you wanted something decent, you're going to be paying a decent sticker price as well.
Before AI, I saw people selling $30-50 avatar commissions that should've been worth $10. Full portraits for mediocre artists were running into $80-120 range, plus surcharges for novel elements. Then you have to find someone whose art you can put up with, get in line for a slot, which may take weeks, communicate everything to the artist (not easy!), deal with delays and sensitive communication etiquette, and go back and forth for revisions - IF they're responsible.
In the end, after several weeks, you will hopefully get a picture you like. These are mediocre artists, though, so you won't get a picture you love. For that you have to shell out $$$, and I honestly don't know how you get a slot without being a mobile game developer.
There are exceptions, and I would shell out the cash for any art I would consider important. But for a portrait for D&D? Lol.
More like assumptions than estimates. I've never commissioned anything, all I know about that kind of thing is when Arch muses on the subject of art assets for videos and thumbnails.
Legal wages for a twelve year old are about $8 an hour around here. She was paid for about two and a half hours of her time, which is about what I estimate she spent.
But thanks for implying that I am a exploitive jerk.
You'd think the literal "giving the means of production to the masses" would be a hit with the Lefties, given their love of socialism.
But because it means giving up their cushy position, then its evil and destructive and soulless and all the other words.
Because that's all this is. Its letting the masses have the ability to create media (pictures, music, video) on their own instead of having to pay someone else to dole it out on a commission basis.
Leftists hate giving the masses power, they always want to be the middle man of everything whilst pretending to speak for the masses . AI cuts out the middle man.
I love to rub salt in their wounds and mention how giddy I am that art is no longer gatekept by sanctimonious retards and that anyone will be able to use AI and produce art without the leftist bullshit.
The first time I really noticed their anger about this was about a year ago when someone plugged Keith Haring's unfinished painting into a chatbot and "completed" it. They were losing their minds. Someone else said it, but the funniest part of this was the past few years when "artists" constantly gloated that they were the only ones who were immune from replacement from AI. Now all I see is impotent shrieks into the void about "slop."
But I know that in 5 years, maybe 10, it'll be old news.
In 5-10 years, we'll have fully AI generated series. It'll look shitty and weird like CG in anime... until it doesn't and it just becomes part of the workflow.
I use AI for work a lot. It's a great tool and means I'm an entire office of people.
The left has already been projecting what they plan to do since 2016. Anything bad will be claimed to be AI or misinformation. Anything they like will be Proven True and Verified. They will try to outlaw AI so that only they can use it. All of this crying is the attempt to push these ideas.
This is my skill. This is how I will earn a living for the rest of my life is a very boomer mindset. I say this knowing that most people on reddit (and likely here as well) are younger than me.
You don't get to just get to a point and relax. Maybe generations ago you could have but not anymore. There is always something coming to threaten your industry and you've got to adapt, especially when technology is growing at such a rapid rate. No one owes you a livelihood. If you sit on your ass and just expect to get paid you'll be pushed aside. The rest of the world isn't going to stop evolving because you're too much of a retarded pussy to evolve with it.
This is likely millenials, the biggest pussy generation in history. Always fucking complaining. Worse than the faggot boomers.
There's no point in arguing with disingenuous idiots like you who think money is the only reason anyone should ever disagree with something. I only replied in the first place to point that fact out to others who didn't read your wall of text.
I just find it funny that the same people who complain about AI taking jobs didn't care about those same jobs being outsourced to India over the past decade.
They're right to do that - not because AI bad, but because a subreddit's content will be dominated by the lowest effort posts it allows. It's the same reason you ban screenshots boasting that you hit Diamond rank or whatever - because you don't want your news or discussion posts crowded out by 500 functionally identical and disposable screenshots.
To be honest I'm against AI at a cellular level but accept it at a practical level.
I wholeheartedly understand both sides and it is to an extent regrettable because truth be told there is something genuinely human and inspiring about one off art pieces even if it is just a passing thing. Like an artisan baker who makes a beautiful wedding cake only for it to be devoured within a day.
So I do get it.
That said, just a few years ago these people so callously told thousands of blue collar workers to "just learn to code" and the irony isn't lost on me (thought undoubtedly it is on them) that it was coders themselves who eventually axed their own jobs.
I do worry about people not being able to find meaningful work and also falling into lethargy and/or despair. Idle hands do the devil's work.
The AI argument now is the same as the UBI argument from just a few years ago. Some people think it will result in them no longer needing to work and can thus sit in their asses all day doing jack shit. And I've seen that before. It's called Wall-E. Or Idiocracy. Or any spoiled kid you knew growing up who basically got UBI/AI v1.0 which is basically just your parents paying for everything to be done for you, cook, clean, drive, etc. and do you know how those people turn out?
They're fucking douchebags. Lazy douchebags.
They didn't use their endless downtime to become superhumanly good at whatever. They just become lazy good for nothing cunts.
Any and every sort of digital art has always used tools to automate and simplify processes for as long as it's existed. That was literally the entire reason they quit hand drawing every fucking frame.
All of those tools opened up art creation potential to more and more people who didn't have the talent to hand draw.
All AI art does is expand that toolbox to the point that everyday laymen can generate something.
I'm sure there were purists scoffing at digital artist as "not real artists" and now it's the digital artists trying to gatekeep.
I don't see where money will be made. Apparently high-production-value films will be as easy to make as memes. Therefore, nobody, not even the few who still do, will pay to see them. A movie that would've made billions in ticket sales in 2010 will just get a few hundred views on YouTube.
I stand by that if an artist/writer/voice actor/whatever can't do a better job than AI then they don't deserve to have their jobs.
I believe that the competent ones will learn to use AI as a tool to speed up their workflow and to better interact with a customer (like having AI render a couple of quick mock ups so the artist can get more info on what the client is looking for instead of drawing something from vague descriptions only to then have to do fix after fix after fix)
I am currently in the process of putting together a rather ambitious creative project that involves writing and drawing. I have passable skills at both, but I'm not amazing, and I don't have the time that I used to when I was a kid. I'm outsourcing a lot of the time-intensive stuff, like drawing backgrounds, and turning sketches into lineart, to AI.
With AI it is feasible for me, one man, to put this together as a hobby while working a full time job. Without it, my idea would never manifest. There will be one more piece of creative media in the world that never would have existed without AI.
Yes there's mountains of AI generated slop out there, and I am concerned about real things on the internet being buried under the output of machines, but like any new technology, there's positives and negatives to it. Mostly it comes down to how you use it.
Funny how it pisses off some people. Libturds tend to dislike anything they can't control. They live in their echo chambers where everything is strcitly monitored and moderated. No wonder they freak out when they encounter something uncontrollable.
The smart thing to do would be for popular VAs to license their voices to be made into AI models so that people can still hear familiar voices they like instead of generic bland ones.
Reminds me of that scene from The Congress where the studio exec got Robin Wright Penn to sign over her likeness to the studio so they could use it for auto-generated entertainment media.
The world could have used a decade of economic stability before the introduction of AI tech, though. It's been nothing but one crisis after another. Putin should have been smacked down instantly in Ukraine. A decade of relative stability would have made the world a lot more prosperous. Birthrates wouldn't have plummeted either, decreasing the artificial 'need' for unwanted immigrants.
AI and other advanced technology will be the death of humanity if people don't unanimously realize the dangers. It's like giving everyone a nuclear weapon. Art and entertainment is of no importance to the discussion of AI, and the loss of jobs is not very important in comparison to the existential threat either. Enjoy your AI while it lasts, human.
Once AI is able to do scientific reasoning (and especially once it is able to make things too, although this isn't necessary) it will very quickly be able to design weapons of mass destruction that can be made from everyday materials or without arousing suspicion. There are protein printing services that could be used to create innocuous looking proteins that together form a virus designed to be more infectious than the flu and slowly killing the patient with 100% mortality. Imagine if also you could modify your microwave to turn it into a nuclear bomb capable of destroying all life on earth. Or if we invent nanoprinters and AI designs self-replicating nanobots that can easily be printed and take over the whole planet and live inside everyone.
Considering how things get cheaper and easier to make with technological advances and that it only took a few hundred years of science to get nuclear weapons capable of destroying cities and engineer viruses capable of infecting over 70% of people, AI that works at a similar level of intelligence but millions of times faster will design infinitely more deadly things in under a year. Even assuming there are no robots to do the AI's scientific experiments or make the technology, humans will do that part for them over a decade or two. Then any of the million psychos who want to see the world burn can live his dream and it's bye bye humanity.
Opposition to AI images is purely political friend/enemy division. If you had access to the Ghibli generator tech 3 years ago and didn't tell them about it, every single person who says "AI slop" now and thinks they're being principled would have loved it.
This. The crazy fact of the matter is the over-saturation of AI-generated content has resulted in the complete trivialization of the technology as a whole.
Go back to as recently as 2010, fuck it, 2015 and show people how this tech works. How you can take any photograph and infinitely re-synthesize it. How you can make fanart of anything, including porn, in the blink of an eye and virtually zero effort on your part. You would be venerated like a God. Your invention would be worth 8 - 9 digits at the very least. Everyone would be awed, and many would become hopelessly addicted.
Granted it sucked but Photoshop has had "content aware fill", the precursor to what we do now with a button-press, since CS5, released 15 fucking years ago.
You’re not wrong, but you guys are also getting conned into cheering on the like increasing third worldification of the US to own the libs. Once AI actually works as designed the efficiency lies in replacing your software engineers with a team of hr lady “prompt engineers” to use it and then a handful of H1Bs to QA the output. You’ll always need specialists like you gotta pay folks to use excel today. There are zero productivity improvements, it’s just ruthless corporate cost cutting.
I work menial labor in a factory, I'm just drinking in the catharsis that the faggots seething about AI replacing their jobs now were, just a few years ago, gloating that I would soon lose my job to automation.
That's the absolute best part of this and I'm glad people noticed.
It is hilarious, redditors have been giddy for a decade about how blue collar work will totally be 100% automated in the future and everything will be cheaper and we will live just like star trek!!!
As it turns out computers are better at writing articles in a computer or generating images in a computer than fixing a burst pipe or driving a semi truck.
Unless they were talking about eliminating government jobs specifically, how does more unemployment make more money for the government?
Working in frontier tech is always high risk high reward. Computer programmers don't deaerve to have their jobs preserved in the face of new tech any more or less than cotton gin gear manufacturers did. Which is to say, not at all.
That's cool. I tell my computer to draw anime boobs and it draws exactly what I was imagining though.
You'd still have the "media literacy" faggots chiding you for disrespecting Miyazaki because he hates AI.
He also hates anime in general, so they don't have much to stand on respecting his opinion.
Even now you will have people sharing images and loving it, but if you realize it's AI and point it out they immediately performatively hate it.
It's like with Unity games, it's trash when it's just a marketplace asset flip but that doesn't mean every game made with that engine is trash. For a really great AI image you wouldn't be able to tell either way.
The same was with Flash back in the day. We need easy simple stuff for beginners, because we need beginners.
But that's the good part.
AI art is soulless and derivative, I find nothing it makes to be of much interest at all.
But I'm willing to pretend otherwise to piss artists off, as a group they come across as wholly petulant and entitled.
So is 99% of all so-called art anyway. The internet has been stuffed to bursting with mediocre scribblers demanding hundreds of dollars for "commissions" for years now, and it's the kind of crap middle schoolers can draw. And they are also the exact same damn people who deride, derogate and destroy real art all across the planet.
AI grinding those people to dust? Good. Bring on the tears. These wannabe Bohemian fucks might finally get real jobs for once.
This is the real Pandora's box that most people aren't considering, but then they weren't thinking creatures to begin with. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together should be alarmed at the prospect of what this is going to do in terms of destroying our ability to record history and accurately model reality.
Rewriting history is truly the real peril.
These days teachers prepare their lessons using AI tools. Students cheat, and hand in homework generated by AI tools. Then Teachers use AI tools to assist in their marking and detect the use of AI tools.
We wrote prose and essays in high school so we could learn the skills of being able to read, apply critical analysis and then write well crafted and coherently on the subject.
Now we can have AI voices read it to us, then fat finger a prompt to have a large language model write about it.
AI is just about at genius level for rationalization. If you give it a set of absolute facts, it will craft everything it produces around those fixed points. Those immutable assumptions can be anything: George Washington was a proud black man; Austin Texas is the greatest city on earth. Islam was right about women.
Students outsourcing the labor of learning facts and skills will catch on faster than viral Tic Tock videos. We will be raising a generation of drooling morons that believe anything their phone tells them. History will be whatever our silicon valley overlords say it should be.
This is truly a Pandora's box.
I mean we already are there. Half the gay shit the people on this entire website believe is fake. And it doesn't even need AI, people believe what supports their opinions.
Do you know how many times I've heard conspiracy faggotry about the Vegas shooting that uses an argument like "OMG are we supposed to believe he removed hurricane grade windows by himself"?
Hurricane grade glass isn't a rating. In order to determine how strong the glass was youd need to actually source the glass contractor and what was purchased and get the technical specifications for it.
Do you think even one fucking person, anywhere, ever, has even attempted to find out what sort of glass was on the Mandaly Bay? Lol fuck no. These people just invent gay fucking shit and they think "hurricane grade" sounds right, and it fools similar idiots who also 'want to believe', and just like that it becomes "fact".
AI hardly changes fuck all in that regard.
They even released the video of him in the lobby and elevator pushing a luggage cart with like twenty giant bags on it.
And he was paying for an expensive room, they aren't going to question it.
And it's Vegas, a city with tons of industrial conventions all the time, it's entirely within reason for a guy to have tons of bags if it contains product for a trade show.
Am I saying something about him didn't stink? No, if his whole plan was a shooting, to a rational person, his setup made no sense. Too many rifles all with odd configurations (no irons or optics on many, like they come from the factory). But again we're talking "to a rational mind".
But I've always been skeptical of nearly all conspiracy theories, and it really is as simple as this: Treat every conspiracy theory with the same level of detail and skepticism as the theorists treat the official story.
Remember Harrison Deal, the guy in Georgia? If the official story was that his car was blown up by a bomb, everyone would be talking about how the damage on the car doesn't look like a bomb, there was no debris field, there was strange damage that "folded" the Jeep, and the bodywork was still attached. People would compare it to pictures of real vehicle bombings showing pieces of bodywork sprayed all over the place.
In other words "nothing about this looks like a bomb". But because the official story was a car crash, suddenly it became a bomb even though the damage makes no sense for it to be a bomb (along with other things like inventing the lie that "the engine was 300 yards away", but you can see the front end of the vehicle was basically intact).
Conspiracy: "GARY WEBB WAS KILLED BECAUSE HE BROKE IRAN-CONTRA!"
Reality: Congress is who broke Iran Contra. Webb wrote a book years later. And he died years after the book. Also you can still buy the book... Who the fuck covers up a story that's already public?
Conspiracy: "MICHAEL HASTINGS WAS KILLED BECAUSE HE WAS GOING TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR!"
Reality: Hastings was a shitlib who sandbagged a very popular General who was critical of Obama and the Iraq war and got him fired. Both Congress and the British Parliament broke the story of the Iraq Dossier. And just like Webb, he wrote the books after the story was already public, he died long after they were written, and you can still buy them.
Also in the cases of both, not a single person who knew them really doubted the official narrative. Webb was in a downward spiral for years and his life was falling apart. Everyone who knew Hastings suggested he had a substance abuse problem.
The dumbest is "Chris Cornell was going to write a story exposing Hollywood pedophiles". Lmao literally never, not once, did he ever even suggest that that was anything he was doing.
The one conspiracy I think I do believe is I think a lot of these types of conspiracies were seeded by the government because of who they target and how they responded to them.
If you're a government and you have a large demographic of perpetual malcontents who are heavily armed and constantly talking about revolution and civil war, but you can't just round them up and gas them, what do you do?
Drive them insane.
MKULTRA was real but every conspiracy theorist thinks they're somehow immune to it. They think all the narrative control weapons are all targeting liberals, and they're "too smart" to fall for the ones that target the right.
So these people are not just something of a powder keg liability, but they're also very gullible, very dumb, and very paranoid.
Fill their heads with insane bullshit. Make them waste years upon years of their lives obsessing over worthless events nobody cares about that will never have a payoff. Bonus points: use narratives that make them believe the government is literally an angry omnipotent God, with the power and will to do anything they want, including controlling hurricanes and earthquakes.
Literally shit that was Biblical in nature they now attribute to government. Government is God to them.
And how do you fight God?
You don't. You can't. Why even bother? Don't go outside or they'll drone strike you. Don't make friends and organize because they are all feds. Just sit at home complaining on the internet, accomplishing nothing, while your age and BMI gradually climb. Don't vote or run for office because elections are fake. Don't try to join the system to change it from the inside because all your friends will hate you and call you a fed traitor.
The most tragic is this: right wingers are mad about Ruby Ridge. Timothy McVeigh blew up a huge VBIED to protest Ruby Ridge. Right wingers immediately and forever call him a fed. Lmao.
Even if he was a fed, isn't it better to take credit for it even just as a symbolic gesture of your frustration and what you could be capable of?
Except when it's a literal copy of something that previously existed. Tools actually allow you to express anything. These models, by virtue of how they're built, can't.
Except for all the primary and secondary evidence that runs counter to it. As if forgeries are a new problem.
Or do you mean literally erased. Which you'd have to do because people aren't as simple as you portray them to be. In which case the hallucinations of "AI" don't matter, it's just the erasure of history. Why is why that's the centerpiece of Orwell's 1984.
You're confusing what we have now as AI. You have a weak grasp on the technology if you think a 30 year timeline is realistic to get from here to there. You've been beguiled and stultified by bad technology and have fallen into this midwit's trap. You mispredict the future badly and entirely at your own peril.
This is why the spend billions on the technology. Is so that you self select yourself out of a job and cede ground to them. They've won your slavery without even a fight.
It isn't a copy. That isn't how that works. Deep Learning Neural Networks don't contain a library of images.
They are trained with a library of images, which is then taken away.
Convolutional Neural Networks play the Hot and Cold game for head-pats.
The training environment gives the Neural Network a prompt. For example "Draw a squid."
The NN does its best to draw a squid. The result is compared to one of the training images from the library of squid images. The NN is awarded head-pats accordingly.
This repeats thousands or millions of times.
A well trained AI can do things like drawing a well known character as though they were a squid which will combine their ability to satisfy both sets of criteria at the same time.
Like it or not, that image has never been created before.
That's not a serious description and demonstrates a poor grasp on the underlying technology. It's guided recursive perturbation of noise. Until that noise looks enough like something it's seen before to become classified as the same.
Anyone else would call this copying with a little bit of randomness added in. You should really dig a little deeper here.
Anyways try the exclusive case. Have it draw something that has never been classified before. You can look around for items of antiquity or lost cultures and see how it fares. Since it can't do these things it obviously only can do things it has seen and have been classified. So it can only reproduce what it has been trained on. This is obvious.
Wow, so it combined two copies into one thing? That's still copying.
It is vaguely impressive that preturbative systems are effective at quickly finding approximate solutions. Which is why "satisfying both sets of criteria" means you get 7 fingered hands and other oddities expressed in the image. Add more criteria for more fun.
You're really just playing Monte Carlo on a stolen deck of classifications. To be fair, Google did pay a bunch of africans $2/day to tag the images, so there is some originality in the database, but very little.
Fortunately that's now how copyright works or how copying is defined in the eyes of the law.
Yeah, so we are having an issue of semantics here. We are using different meanings of the word copy. Further, I think you know what the actual definition is, and you are arguing in bad faith.
If a human artist looks at a drawing or an image, then makes a copy of it by hand, it is substantially different. This can be sold as original art under a couple conditions. I won't get into the conditions here, because I don't think they matter and you don't care.
If the artwork is different enough that it won't be confused for commercial purposes, it doesn't infringe on copyright.
Moreover, there are things that can not be covered by copyright. These include styles and formats. There has been a Chinese version of the Australian show "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire." Which in turn is a copy of the CBS show "The $64,000 Question" from 1955, because you can't copyright show formats.
You also can't copyright procedures, rules or recipes. You also can't copyright an artistic school or style.
So, you are conflating the term "duplicate" with the term "copy". Duplicates are covered by copyright, as they are an exact reproduction of an artistic work.
A rabbi crawling out of a drain grate in the style of Studio Ghibli absolutely is not.
To take a photographic image and then redraw that into a new picture in an entirely different style is not a copy. It certainly isn't a duplicate.
To combine two images into a fusion of artistic representations into an image that has never existed before is not a copy.
You are correct. A convolutional neural network will not be able to generate images that match criteria outside its training data set.
But you can't speak Chinese without every having learned it. So what? What does that have to do with anything at all?
Your major complaint seems to be that Convolutional Neural Networks are not, in fact, people. You got me! They have less neurons than a flatworm. They are certainly less complex than the nervous system of a garden slug. They get things wrong and draw stupid shit all the time.
That doesn't mean they are a Xerox machine. They have a different function and are really good at certain tasks, especially of classification. They are very scalable. They are not thinking machines in any sense of the word "thinking".
Really?
Transformative is the standard. And it can be adjudicated. Pure copies by hand are called forgeries and are not legal to sell. I don't know why you think a hand copy is immediately substantially transformative when there's centuries of case law saying precisely the opposite and offering real tests to be used in making the determination.
If I can recognize the style then it's obvious you copied it.
No, you are, in an effort to argue in bad faith. The tool makes copies. Sometimes those copies are so bad they actually do violate copyright. That they can be transformative does not relieve them of being copies. This is obvious.
Your previous example seemed to rely on the fact you could combine a known character with octopus parts and call that a "new work." The point being, even copyright law, with all it's exceptions, would call this a violation. You can't draw Iron Man with squid legs and call it a new character.
Effectively they are. So are humans. The difference is humans are additionally capable of creating entirely new things. These toys cannot. They will not. There is no upgrade to make them capable of it. There is no obvious technological path from the current implementation to a new one which is equally capable.
This thing can only copy. To get back on point your 30 year timeline is bogus. If you understand this technology so well then you should see this clearly.
Guy, when you enter a prompt into a Convolutional Neural Network, you can't point to the work that it is coping; because it isn't copying a single work, or even a couple. The NN is relying on the complex interactions of neurons to identify patterns within its output and to adjust those to make them better match a gestalt of that training.
You know this. You tried to correct my original response to point this out to me.
When you duplicate an image with a Xerox machine, or even a person visually copying an artwork by looking at it, you can point to the piece being copied. "There it is, that is the original."
Duplication is prohibited under copywrite law; but style isn't. Drawing Spongebob Squarepants in the style of Vincent Van Gough is a creative, transformational work even if you can recognize both the character and the style.
There may be issues about selling or distributing that work, because Spongebob is covered by trademark etc., but there is no question about the transformative and artistic nature of the piece. Juxtaposing the vapid childrens' character and one of the most famous Dutch painters is, in itself, an artistic statement.
From https://www.clrn.org/can-you-copyright-an-art-style/
I get that you fucking hate Neural Network generated art. I understand, but you are just making shit up to win arguments. You are demonstrably wrong, which is worse because you know you are wrong, and you don't give a fuck.
Every day we make fun of Neo-Marxist fuckheads for making up their own facts, and here you are doing it to win an internet slap fight.
Even if you manage to declare victory by utterly distorting terms (a leftist tactic) you will have convinced no one of your point of view.
There are really, really good reasons to distrust Convolutional Neural Networks and Large Language Models. I've given a few very good ones in other posts in this topic. "lol; they are just Xerox machines!' isn't one.
Oh, and BTW, I've never given a 30 year prediction. That was someone else.
AI image creators are fantastic for whipping up character icons for RPG's. I don't care if they're kind of wonky, search engines fucking suck now, and I'm not paying hundreds of dollars and waiting several weeks to commission anything.
On purpose. The same companies that own this technology own search engines. They broke the algorithm and destroyed result quality on purpose. Their only metric now is "time spent on Google." They don't care about the rest anymore.
For your.. rpg character icon? Is that like a huge market or something?
No clue. Just listing what my options are if I want artwork for something. It's either steal it online, commission it, use AI... or learn to draw myself. Of those, AI is the easiest.
Art is cheap. I think your estimate was way off.
Art is either expensive, stolen, mass-produced, or AI.
If you want custom original work cheap, it needs to be AI. AI is the only thing able to make novel concepts out of existing well-known ideas anywhere near affordable: in example, "Iron Man drawn in the Disgaea anime art style doing Naruto hand-jutsus while in a temple made of bones" has never, EVER been made by anyone, it is a never-having-occurred-before novel idea of existing ideas. It's a couple minutes work for an AI, or probably a $100 commission from an artist if you want color.
If your idea already exists in its current form entirely, then AI is bad at it compared to cheap labor who can steal it, trace it, or mass-produce it. "Draw Iron Man in an action pose, no background", in example. You'd be fighting the AI the entire way wanting to make the image more complex, but a basic artist could easily find a comic, trace the image, steal and claim credit, and make a small paycheck.
Yep. AI is useful in this case as well, just to indicate certain features you'd like to the artist.
Good art is not cheap at all when factoring in opportunity cost of time. Not to mention if you wanted something decent, you're going to be paying a decent sticker price as well.
Before AI, I saw people selling $30-50 avatar commissions that should've been worth $10. Full portraits for mediocre artists were running into $80-120 range, plus surcharges for novel elements. Then you have to find someone whose art you can put up with, get in line for a slot, which may take weeks, communicate everything to the artist (not easy!), deal with delays and sensitive communication etiquette, and go back and forth for revisions - IF they're responsible.
In the end, after several weeks, you will hopefully get a picture you like. These are mediocre artists, though, so you won't get a picture you love. For that you have to shell out $$$, and I honestly don't know how you get a slot without being a mobile game developer.
There are exceptions, and I would shell out the cash for any art I would consider important. But for a portrait for D&D? Lol.
More like assumptions than estimates. I've never commissioned anything, all I know about that kind of thing is when Arch muses on the subject of art assets for videos and thumbnails.
Furry commissions and the prices they pay for OCs are completely deranged.
Eh. I paid a local twelve year old twenty bucks for original character art for a TTRPG.
It was the daughter of a friend. She spends all her free time drawing anyway. She got paid to practice her art. It was win/win.
It was not museum quality, but it was $20 worth.
If I had the connections to exploit child labor at sub-minumum wage, I'd take advantage of that. Sadly, I do not.
Legal wages for a twelve year old are about $8 an hour around here. She was paid for about two and a half hours of her time, which is about what I estimate she spent.
But thanks for implying that I am a exploitive jerk.
I was being facetious. Mostly. Round these parts you can't even use child labor, let alone pay them a paltry $8 an hour. Fucking Democrats...
I am in the same boat. The people whining about this (with reason) are the most vicious, cruel people in any hobby.
Grey DeLisle is a genuinely evil woman. Were she not famous, she'd have definitely murdered a couple people by this point.
Everyone just uses Cal Arts style anyway. Nothing much has changed.
You'd think the literal "giving the means of production to the masses" would be a hit with the Lefties, given their love of socialism.
But because it means giving up their cushy position, then its evil and destructive and soulless and all the other words.
Because that's all this is. Its letting the masses have the ability to create media (pictures, music, video) on their own instead of having to pay someone else to dole it out on a commission basis.
Leftists hate giving the masses power, they always want to be the middle man of everything whilst pretending to speak for the masses . AI cuts out the middle man.
I love to rub salt in their wounds and mention how giddy I am that art is no longer gatekept by sanctimonious retards and that anyone will be able to use AI and produce art without the leftist bullshit.
Totally agree.
The first time I really noticed their anger about this was about a year ago when someone plugged Keith Haring's unfinished painting into a chatbot and "completed" it. They were losing their minds. Someone else said it, but the funniest part of this was the past few years when "artists" constantly gloated that they were the only ones who were immune from replacement from AI. Now all I see is impotent shrieks into the void about "slop."
In 5-10 years, we'll have fully AI generated series. It'll look shitty and weird like CG in anime... until it doesn't and it just becomes part of the workflow.
You don't see many people who aren't just complete NPC meat robots getting smug about AI hands like they used to and that was just a year ago.
Kind of already here...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJZCMfaS-io
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDlME4qvER8
https://youtu.be/5NZubOOeeV0?t=218
Including full half hour episodes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_NA-OiOGWA
I use AI for work a lot. It's a great tool and means I'm an entire office of people.
The left has already been projecting what they plan to do since 2016. Anything bad will be claimed to be AI or misinformation. Anything they like will be Proven True and Verified. They will try to outlaw AI so that only they can use it. All of this crying is the attempt to push these ideas.
This is my skill. This is how I will earn a living for the rest of my life is a very boomer mindset. I say this knowing that most people on reddit (and likely here as well) are younger than me.
You don't get to just get to a point and relax. Maybe generations ago you could have but not anymore. There is always something coming to threaten your industry and you've got to adapt, especially when technology is growing at such a rapid rate. No one owes you a livelihood. If you sit on your ass and just expect to get paid you'll be pushed aside. The rest of the world isn't going to stop evolving because you're too much of a retarded pussy to evolve with it.
This is likely millenials, the biggest pussy generation in history. Always fucking complaining. Worse than the faggot boomers.
And there it fucking is. Why do these arguments always end up falling back upon "just sell your identity!"
My point is that you clearly have no clue why people don't like this shit if you think that's a reasonable solution to their problem.
There's no point in arguing with disingenuous idiots like you who think money is the only reason anyone should ever disagree with something. I only replied in the first place to point that fact out to others who didn't read your wall of text.
I just find it funny that the same people who complain about AI taking jobs didn't care about those same jobs being outsourced to India over the past decade.
They're right to do that - not because AI bad, but because a subreddit's content will be dominated by the lowest effort posts it allows. It's the same reason you ban screenshots boasting that you hit Diamond rank or whatever - because you don't want your news or discussion posts crowded out by 500 functionally identical and disposable screenshots.
To be honest I'm against AI at a cellular level but accept it at a practical level.
I wholeheartedly understand both sides and it is to an extent regrettable because truth be told there is something genuinely human and inspiring about one off art pieces even if it is just a passing thing. Like an artisan baker who makes a beautiful wedding cake only for it to be devoured within a day.
So I do get it.
That said, just a few years ago these people so callously told thousands of blue collar workers to "just learn to code" and the irony isn't lost on me (thought undoubtedly it is on them) that it was coders themselves who eventually axed their own jobs.
I do worry about people not being able to find meaningful work and also falling into lethargy and/or despair. Idle hands do the devil's work.
The AI argument now is the same as the UBI argument from just a few years ago. Some people think it will result in them no longer needing to work and can thus sit in their asses all day doing jack shit. And I've seen that before. It's called Wall-E. Or Idiocracy. Or any spoiled kid you knew growing up who basically got UBI/AI v1.0 which is basically just your parents paying for everything to be done for you, cook, clean, drive, etc. and do you know how those people turn out?
They're fucking douchebags. Lazy douchebags.
They didn't use their endless downtime to become superhumanly good at whatever. They just become lazy good for nothing cunts.
And that's what I worry will happen to everyone.
Any and every sort of digital art has always used tools to automate and simplify processes for as long as it's existed. That was literally the entire reason they quit hand drawing every fucking frame.
All of those tools opened up art creation potential to more and more people who didn't have the talent to hand draw.
All AI art does is expand that toolbox to the point that everyday laymen can generate something.
I'm sure there were purists scoffing at digital artist as "not real artists" and now it's the digital artists trying to gatekeep.
I don't see where money will be made. Apparently high-production-value films will be as easy to make as memes. Therefore, nobody, not even the few who still do, will pay to see them. A movie that would've made billions in ticket sales in 2010 will just get a few hundred views on YouTube.
Agreed, I find it hilarious as well. Especially how they pretend they're going to stop it from happening.
I stand by that if an artist/writer/voice actor/whatever can't do a better job than AI then they don't deserve to have their jobs.
I believe that the competent ones will learn to use AI as a tool to speed up their workflow and to better interact with a customer (like having AI render a couple of quick mock ups so the artist can get more info on what the client is looking for instead of drawing something from vague descriptions only to then have to do fix after fix after fix)
I am currently in the process of putting together a rather ambitious creative project that involves writing and drawing. I have passable skills at both, but I'm not amazing, and I don't have the time that I used to when I was a kid. I'm outsourcing a lot of the time-intensive stuff, like drawing backgrounds, and turning sketches into lineart, to AI.
With AI it is feasible for me, one man, to put this together as a hobby while working a full time job. Without it, my idea would never manifest. There will be one more piece of creative media in the world that never would have existed without AI.
Yes there's mountains of AI generated slop out there, and I am concerned about real things on the internet being buried under the output of machines, but like any new technology, there's positives and negatives to it. Mostly it comes down to how you use it.
Funny how it pisses off some people. Libturds tend to dislike anything they can't control. They live in their echo chambers where everything is strcitly monitored and moderated. No wonder they freak out when they encounter something uncontrollable.
Reminds me of that scene from The Congress where the studio exec got Robin Wright Penn to sign over her likeness to the studio so they could use it for auto-generated entertainment media.
The world could have used a decade of economic stability before the introduction of AI tech, though. It's been nothing but one crisis after another. Putin should have been smacked down instantly in Ukraine. A decade of relative stability would have made the world a lot more prosperous. Birthrates wouldn't have plummeted either, decreasing the artificial 'need' for unwanted immigrants.
AI and other advanced technology will be the death of humanity if people don't unanimously realize the dangers. It's like giving everyone a nuclear weapon. Art and entertainment is of no importance to the discussion of AI, and the loss of jobs is not very important in comparison to the existential threat either. Enjoy your AI while it lasts, human.
Once AI is able to do scientific reasoning (and especially once it is able to make things too, although this isn't necessary) it will very quickly be able to design weapons of mass destruction that can be made from everyday materials or without arousing suspicion. There are protein printing services that could be used to create innocuous looking proteins that together form a virus designed to be more infectious than the flu and slowly killing the patient with 100% mortality. Imagine if also you could modify your microwave to turn it into a nuclear bomb capable of destroying all life on earth. Or if we invent nanoprinters and AI designs self-replicating nanobots that can easily be printed and take over the whole planet and live inside everyone.
Considering how things get cheaper and easier to make with technological advances and that it only took a few hundred years of science to get nuclear weapons capable of destroying cities and engineer viruses capable of infecting over 70% of people, AI that works at a similar level of intelligence but millions of times faster will design infinitely more deadly things in under a year. Even assuming there are no robots to do the AI's scientific experiments or make the technology, humans will do that part for them over a decade or two. Then any of the million psychos who want to see the world burn can live his dream and it's bye bye humanity.