The Rise Of AI?

Well yeah you're right in the combat aspect but I'm not talking about that.

I'm talking about cost-efficiency and analogy.

Knights will take years of practice and cost expensive to hire due to his mastery. (Human artist)
But give a peasant a musket- like giving someone access to AI- and suddenly you can field an army for 1% of the cost.

Imagine a company needs 100 images in a week. Illustrators might cost $1,000 and take several days.
AI tools can do it in an hour for $50. Most businesses will pick the faster, cheaper option- even if the quality is just 90% as good.

Not talking about painting here my friend, I'm talking about the average stuff from book covers, to thumbnails, social media banners, avatars, character design, advertisement, logo, fan art, tarpaulin, billboards.

Those are the areas where people usually hire artists, and that’s where AI is starting to replace human work because it’s fast and affordable.

Someone might be talented at painting gallery pieces, but that’s a different world from the commercial side I’m describing.

there is more ai art on the internet simply because you get more backslash saying you like them on offline social settings maybe

ai art is controversial but overall ai in general is very useful and may cheapen not just art but also things like lawyer needs, education needs, self driving vehicles, and even general doctor needs and accounting consultation needs by ordinary and even poor people

robot tax and wealth tax as well as global tax is just needed when majority of the population is out of work due to ai

I'm not sure how to be more clear, but: I am obviously not saying AI has emotions. I am saying that it is able to reproduce how emotions are expressed via text. It does not have to have emotions to do this. Indeed, it does not have to have emotions to represent human emotion in text much better than the average human can.

Think of it this way: We can grow precious stones like diamonds in the lab. We can also get diamonds from the natural geological processes that take place over billions of years (though the actual formative step for something like a diamond doesn't take nearly as long geologically). Both are diamonds. This does not mean that, in order to make diamonds, the labs contain the mantle of a planet, or volcanoes. In the same way, AI does not have to have emotions to be able to process well how emotion is expressed via text. Essentially you've exaggerated what I'm saying because you don't understand this point.


Now—I know you know how to read.

@deg Thing is though, the products will become cheaper to make, but they won't become cheaper for the population to buy

Like i just said to @-Shinzo, we both know that cutting production cost doesn't mean us getting a cheaper product, it means buisnesses lining their own pockets with more cash

Sigh; I can't do anything for you if you can't process what I'm saying.


This is literally what large language models do: They scan huge amounts of text and produce statistically-likely outputs given what they've scanned. If humans have expressed a certain emotion in text in a bunch of ways, the LLM can process that text and produce something like it.

You're reading text represented by huge arrays of pixels lighting up in certain ways. Pixels have no emotions, nor do printed words, nor do words themselves. This doesn't stop them from expressing emotions via the material of the statement.

As to lab-grown diamonds, I did not miss the point of the debate surrounding their value. Rather, knowing that this also is a complicated issue, I figured I'd leave it alone given that we're having enough trouble as it is.

@DigiCat that entirely depends if the voters let such politicians still do crony capitalism or worse the voters needs another french revolution

@deg So suppose we eliminate capitalism and now everything is free, which do you think the majority of people will go for, the free well made products of a human artisan, or the free lower quality AI counterpart?

I'm not sure what this means. You seem fairly resilient anyway.


I'm not sure what this means either.

I think we're forgetting that the production of art doesn't encompass the entirety of human life or value. It's very clearly a mapping of the human into a specific output. AI beating us in its ability to produce art sometimes isn't a condemnation of all of humanity. Further, I think you slipped in a notion that doesn't correspond to what I'm saying—"that AI proves superior on account of having absorbed more." Mapping human life directly onto art, or mapping it peripherally onto art via AI giant matrices, is not the same as mapping these onto a general ranking of worth; it doesn't really make sense to talk about AI as generically "superior" to people, nor would I think of AI as superior thus. The issue is the AI hysteria, and the superficial takes that side with humanity by claiming our crappy, decadent Last Man output is always better than what a computer can do, basically because of what amounts to a capitalist psychosocial multi-level marketing scam that says everyone is wonderful and brilliant. I am far less misanthropic than the people who want to give themselves gold star stickers for regurgitating the capitalist art minimum. That AI will make this homogenization and dumbing-down worse doesn't at all go against my contention that AI can do better than the current average, for what it can do is quite different from what it will actually get used for.

Part of the problem here is that my primary thoughts are a reaction to the failures in contemporary AI discourse, but my primary thoughts aren't all my thoughts. For example, I don't think what I've said so far actually disagrees with what you're saying now. I don't think AI could make The Room, because by being a human product The Room is situated in a network of relationships an AI movie could never have (e.g., the oeuvre of Tommy Wiseau, a human with a history). All this is actually rather relevant to The Archaeology of Knowledge, in which Foucault develops his theory of discursive formations and archaeology in order to describe what he thinks his method is. As you say, and I do think this makes sense, AI can't really "discuss" things like a human can (though I don't think I actually used that word), because it lacks the appurtenances of human existence like history, thoughts, expectation of a resolution, relevance of the topic to its life, and whatnot. But I haven't said AI can do such things. When someone isolated and unhappy asks AI for advice about their day, AI can produce text far more understanding and empathetic than what that person probably gets from everyone else around because AI is trained on texts that capture such understanding and empathy. It would be much better for them if an actual person could say what the AI can say; it would even be much better if an actual person could talk to and understand them just a little bit. It is to the shame of humanity that our social behavior and intelligence can be beaten by AI. But that AI can't, won't, and shouldn't replace us isn't an excuse to remain cruel beings. Thus, I could see AI producing a text like The Room, something that becomes infamous and hilarious for being awkwardly done, but the nature of its origin would be such that we wouldn't really be able to relate to its output like we can to Wiseau's—relate not as in how we emotionally resonate with the story and scenes, but as in how we contextualize the work as a work. There is a level at which fictional narrative can be compelling on the face of it, whatever the deeper connection to its author or to human history is; it is here that AI can beat us. I agree that this is something of a technical victory, so that I don't think it could produce something as compelling as Gravity's Rainbow, that the best stuff is going to require the network of human relationships to be the best. But we rank anime from 1 to 10. I already consider most of what airs seasonally garbage. I would not be surprised if a deliberately literary AI, put in charge of the anime season in a few years, could consistently beat what humans do. But that's just going to mean more 7s, not tons of 10s. And if AI did manage to produce a 9, say, we'd inherently have to relate to that 9 differently from all the human-made anime 9s. It would be its own thing, and I think it'd be good to have unique things like that. But again, what AI actually gets used for is probably going to be something like saving costs on churning out more 5s and 6s. (And don't forget that sufficiently literary people could just as easily write better anime than what we actually get.)

@DigiCat it does not matter since people by default will go to the better looking art and btw you keep focusing on ai art when ai is not just about arts

You are again confusing yourself, by confusing different senses of the word "express." Large language models can accurately represent human textual descriptions of emotion—in ways that describe how that emotion is felt by the human, for example. And they can often thus convey this information in ways more empathetic (again, not that the AI actually possesses empathy) and complete than the average person, because they're trained on text that's better than the average person could produce. This is all I have been saying, at least as far as this point goes. Repeatedly countering that AI doesn't have emotions isn't a refutation.

The performative attempt to claim that we are mirroring each other in our misunderstanding of each other does not work. Feel free to respond with another useless performative rebuttal.

@deg Yes i know AI is used in different things and theer's even things AI is good at, but thisthread is abou AI "art"

Anyways you answerd yourself, people will go by default to what looks better, aka AI "art" is a failure regardless of capitalism

@DigiCat youre clearly in denial here overall ai art today is more better than the average human arts online otherwise there wont be a lot of ai arts on the internet and we know that ai art will keep on improving more

@deg I think you are confusing quantity with quality...

@auroraloose What senses am i confusing? You are literally talking about emotions, AI can't express emotion, nor can it represent emotion, as you put it, i'm sure as AI advances and is able to experience the world it'll be able to form it's own opinions, so it will be able to express opinions, but that is not emotion

And i'm sorry, did you just say AI can convey information in a more empathetic way that humans? Not to be rude, but have you been living under a rock? Have you not seen the results of turning ChatGPT for empathy?

Being able to make a text sound nice and non confrontational is not empathy, it fact it can be the exact opposite when used in the wrong situation

@DigiCat not at all i did say the amount of decent quality ai art has more quantity than average quality human arts

also rename your thread to ai art and not ai in general then

@deg You literally said "overall AI art is better, otherwise there won't be a lot of AI art on the internet" -> meaning there's a lot of AI "art" on the internet because it's good, but benefit of the doubt you just worded it wrong

And no, i don't need to rename the thread, most people are smart enough to read the OG post and not soley base things off the title


1) The turning test mesures intelligence, not empathy

2) Give the blind test, i'd like to see the results for myself

3) Like i already mentioned before, you only need to see what the results are when humans turn to AI for empathy to prove it lacks it


You are right here though, empathy is not an exclusively human trait and there are of course humans who lack empathy

And at the very least, if you want to show a study, get the topic right, it's not "the majority of CEOs are psychopaths" it's "there's a higher % of psychopaths among CEOs"

@DigiCat yes its the same thing if ai art is bad it wont be popular

here on mal forums alone you will see more users just reading the thread title and not the first post

the turing test is about testing if an ai is like a convincing human to the user thats it so its not specifically about intelligence or empathy

AI doesn’t play favorites, so I hope Ai takes over the world and No VIP passes, no bribes, no bias. If AI were judge and jury, the spectacle of privilege will mean nothing...