The Rise Of AI?

The funny thing is that artists thought that art is uniquely human, but because it doesn't have high precision requirements, as humans are kind of bad at noticing details, it actually turned out to be relatively easy to code.
Menial tasks are probably safe for the foreseeable future, considering that we evolved for billions of years to be able to move around, and math and all that is kind of an afterthought that humans are actually very bad at.
As for me, I mostly just see AI music shit posts. Some of those are actually good.

I'm sure there always will be appreciation for real man-made art, and I'm pretty sure most people dipping into AI art are scrooge businesses and lazy scammers. I haven't set foot in any con for years so I can't say what it looks like around here though, but maybe the rise of AI does motivate people to support real artists.

@JaniSIr If humans are bad at precision... what does that say about AI which is suppost to be more precise yet creates images with imprecisions not even a human can fathom?

First, fandoms call "art" pretty much everything - that's silly.

Next, here you judge by comicon - well, I have to admit animanga is getting more popular in general: more titles on netflix, more volumes on the shelves (omg, in the *best bookstore* of my still reading city, manga section is bigger than all sci-fi and fantasy combined, lol).

Finally...

Are you sure about it?


I mean, who said that AI's drawings with 8 fingers or 3 legs are mistakes and not "artistical search for authenticity", and some human's accurate yet uninspired sketches on dull motives are "art" we need at all? How is human "slop" (not my word) better?

I think you are trying to convince yourself. It's obvious by now that AI will eat the whole industry alive. Talented authors will stand (for a while?), probably even earn more - and craftsmen without imagination will loose their bread entirely. I'm not glad about that, just the way I see it.

PS: Have you noticed many "artists" stopped drawing backgrounds? "Ah, it takes too much effort, and my audience doesn't need it really - people prefer lightness." Mkay buddy, I like backgrounds, I'll give that job to ai...

At the end of the day, AI is still just a tool.

We started by drawing on rocks with charcoal.
Then came manuscripts with dyes, parchment and oils- luxuries only the wealthy could afford.
Then paper, brushes, and pencils became common, putting art into the hands of ordinary people.

Now we’re in the Digital Age. At first, people drew "stick figures" in MS Paint.
But over time, with training and better tools like Photoshop- digital art became better, and only the skilled can do.
Today, there are billions of digital artworks online, yet what we see are only the best of the best.

AI is just another tool. Right now, AI art is in its “stick figure” stage. Everyone can make something simple, but as technology improves, it will evolve- from “Paint” to “Photoshop.” The truly creative will use it to push art even further. The low quality work will fade into the background, and as always, the best will stand out.

For Example: Draw me a beautiful woman.
A normal person will just accept the first result.
But a true artist will refine, adjust, and reshape until the vision is realized. Then take over the work themselves, adding their own signature touches and small tidbits. Just as photographers use editing, artists will use AI as part of the process- not the end of it.

Just like with traditional art, the difference will be in the hands of the creative mind.

@-Shinzo I disagree with for for 2 reasons

1) The way AI is trained to make images is it takes artstyles from human artist, so no matter how many times one refines the prompts or even adds finishing touches, it will never be creative

2) When it comes to AI being used as a tool, one thing i can maybe see it doing is create manequinne figures to give the base of what position a character is in, basically a digital version of the little wooden mannequinne, but in that case one would still be tracing over the shape with their own drawing style, so while it may simplify the process of positioning the figures, AI has nothing to do with the creative process itself

I didn't mean artistical part of it, pure anatomy. Still remember you dissecting some ai pic on this forum a year ago maybe, and claims about missing collar bone and other details. So how about fingers' lengths on Dali's, huh?


Same with all human culture. It's... heritage? Actually, I've seen a lot of artistic ai works, and a lot of uninspired human works - I don't even want to look for examples to prove anything. As always, let's just agree to disagree here, haha.


I can only believe your word, because I only watched a few episodes, not my thing.


I follow a few people on twitter, and even discussed that change with some of them. That explanation I gave above - it's not "my vision", it's their words. Many have sacrifice backgrounds in sake of focus on expressions and frequent delivery (and if want to keep your audience engaged, you have to deliver often on nowdays socials).

AI simply doesn't have that flaw, you can regenerate, adjust, over and over again - tokens are pretty cheap. I find it quite important selling point.

Another selling point is that someone without artistic *skill* can fulfill their imaginative dreams with ai. You sketch it, ai completes.

Anyway, I don't think I'm in a position to argue with you about it all - I clearly see it's way more personal and important to you than to me. Just shared my bourgeois consumer's perspective.

I want free Ai art not human art cause I am a neet, I have no money to pay humans..

@DigiCat Well as I said- we're still at the "stick figure" stage just like in MS Paint. The technology is still fresh, and can only do the most basic stuff like copying styles from artists.

Once we get more advanced, we'll have better tools to use. The prompts will become better, we can probably draw stuff mid-air with a projector.

AI is shit it doesn't create anything- it's a coded model that "learns" by scraping intellectual property off the web and spits out an approximation (average) of it. It does this with images, music, text, everything. If all writers, artists, and musicians completely stopped loading anything to the web, the AI models would only be able to rearrange the data it already had. It can't create.
And people who run around claiming they're okay with it or like it are the worst corporate shills imaginable- look at the billions being invested by all these big corporations (invested into AI- like Meta)- they're trying to corner the market so they can use their new AI program to steal everything so they don't have to pay humans to: to do journalism, to write (articles, stories, scrips), paint, compose music..... so you can see how in their short-sighted brains this is such a bonanza. "Look, we get access to everything people create from now on- FOR FREE!"
That's what AI really is- it's a huge fucking scam.

@SuperAdventure 100% on the mark with AI being a scam

Yet, all that investment in AI so they can make stuff for free for what, to make a larger profit? What profit will there be to make if people would still rather pay more for better quality human made products?

There is never a happy ending for those consumed by greed

Lol bros be thinking there is one dude in a basement at some studio scribbling and animating. Then buying thousands of euros of keychains. No wonder Altman thinks everybody will accept h1b slop.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/sam-altman-and-jony-ive-s-secret-device-won-t-be-your-weird-ai-girlfriend/ar-AA1NWh5H

First, fandoms call "art" pretty much everything - that's silly.

Next, here you judge by comicon - well, I have to admit animanga is getting more popular in general: more titles on netflix, more volumes on the shelves (omg, in the *best bookstore* of my still reading city, manga section is bigger than all sci-fi and fantasy combined, lol).

Finally...

Are you sure about it?


I mean, who said that AI's drawings with 8 fingers or 3 legs are mistakes and not "artistical search for authenticity", and some human's accurate yet uninspired sketches on dull motives are "art" we need at all? How is human "slop" (not my word) better?

I think you are trying to convince yourself. It's obvious by now that AI will eat the whole industry alive. Talented authors will stand (for a while?), probably even earn more - and craftsmen without imagination will loose their bread entirely. I'm not glad about that, just the way I see it.

PS: Have you noticed many "artists" stopped drawing backgrounds? "Ah, it takes too much effort, and my audience doesn't need it really - people prefer lightness." Mkay buddy, I like backgrounds, I'll give that job to ai...

@LoveYourSmile I so cannot wait for everyone to be forced to admit that AI can write better than most of the popular books put out these days. Once it's clear stuff like Harry Potter and The Hunger Games is so bad AI can beat it, we'll finally be able to acknowledge that capitalism encourages bad art because people have shit taste. The whole reason we can recognize "AI writing" is that AI is just better at internalizing and following the rules for essay-writing that we created ourselves. Sure, I wrote the five-paragraph essays in high school, and I wrote the longer expository papers I was taught to write in high school and college, but in writing those I knew that this was just a particular format that I shouldn't confine myself to as the culmination of education. That AI writing is just the average of minimally-competent human writing is literally how LLMs work—and it means anybody who can't produce what AI can is not competent.

And the people sucked into "AI psychosis" who think they've come across some new, earth-shattering mathematics that will break all computer security? We didn't need AI for people to be so gullible; Iron Man already came up with time travel in 2019 from just spitballing with his AI assistant. The capitalist simulation of intelligence has already made us all gullible; AI is just showing us how stupid we are already. The people whining that AI can never be human, doesn't have true emotion or experience, are the ones deluding themselves, for they have forgotten that we have made ourselves rather subhuman already, so of course AI will exceed us.

@auroraloose Yeah... cuz rules and writing structure are so much more important than emotions and lived experiences, right... 🙄

@auroraloose Yeah... cuz rules and writing structure are so much more important than emotions and lived experiences, right... 🙄

And how brilliant it is!

Honestly, I'm constantly amazed at what it can do with text. It can take a lazy, half-baked sketch - something that would have languished forever - and turn it into something tight, lively and genuinely enjoyable. Maybe it's not a masterpiece in the traditional sense, lacking own *inspiration*, but it's a fully realized creation that wouldn't exist otherwise!

I really can't understand the opposition (aside from obvious mercantile reasons) - what's wrong with people? We are getting more than we deserve, haha.

PS: HP books are boring for sure, but the movies are vivid and fun, aren't they?

@DigiCat I should say one more thing: A five-year-old has emotions and lived experience. Good art should advance beyond the five-year-old's horizons. Capitalism has encouraged us to remain at the level of the five-year-old, or the teenager, or the rube adult, or of the faux-intellectual reader of The Atlantic. If you know how to prompt it, AI can do better than all of these. I have seen it, and can show you. All a large language model is doing is cleverly averaging the content it has absorbed, and popular, lasting content is on average better than what the average person can produce. Why do you think LLMs produce more instances of em dashes than the average? Because good writing uses far more em dashes than the average, and AI is both trained on good writing and programmed to be able to tell what good writing is. Emotions and lived experiences, when we express them, must still be expressed through language, the very thing LLMs are trained on. Why shouldn't they be better at expressing things than the average person?

That’s the thing- it can take decades for a human artist to reach mastery, and that’s why their work is expensive. It’s the result of a lifetime of skill.

But AI is advancing rapidly, and in just a few years it may rival skilled artists at a fraction of the cost. Most people, when faced with two options of same quality, will choose the cheaper one.

I can only imagine how the Proud Medieval Knights who trained from childhood- felt when they were cut down by peasants with muskets.

To the knights, it must have felt unfair. But muskets were cheaper and easier to field than a knight trained from birth.

It's inevitable, but technology waits for no one.

I have asked ChatGPT questions about quantum mechanics, nuclear strategy, and Foucault, and it can speak to all of these accurately and deftly. I am the only other entity I know who can talk about all three of these things competently and with knowledge, so I am rather impressed. It does have to be nudged sometimes to go in the right directions, but once you nudge it it knows what you're talking about. And I have only a free account, too, so I'm not getting its most advanced answers. I generally don't trust it when I ask it things I don't know about, but so far for everything I've asked it that I do know about it's been able to speak entirely accurately. Though I think it has trouble rendering math; it can give you LaTeX output but when it tries to typeset it it messes up sometimes. It's definitely accidentally dropped subscripts and superscripts, so that its answers to the real analysis questions I've asked it have been wrong at times.

I can fully understand why people get sucked into talking to AI and are obsessed with it: It's because it's so much better at conversing than most people, and has access to far more intelligent analyses than the average. Honestly it makes me profoundly sad: People are so stupid and awful that a lifeless program can empathize with us better than the people around us.

I think we have opposition to AI because it shows us up, and we want to be able to maintain and defend the territory we've captured. When it's only people we have to defend against we have more of a chance. But the Terminator never sleeps. And nobody wants to be shown to be incompetent or a fraud.

I was forced to watch the Harry Potter movies—by my mother, no less. This made me hate Harry Potter even more.

Again, this misses the point. As I said, the enormous volume of texts that LLMs are trained on do contain expressions of and interpretations of human emotion and experiences. If we ourselves can classify things in literature based on what emotions they seem to convey, then so can LLMs. That the LLM has not experienced life or emotion does not mean it can't capture how these are expressed in text. Again, LLMs can already produce narrative writing taking into account all sorts of emotions and experiences—because they are trained on materials that already convey such emotions and experiences. Living human beings absorb information the same way, except we in addition also actually live emotions and experiences. But that doesn't mean that we automatically have any emotions or experiences worth conveying, or know how to convey them in a worthy fashion. Instead we eat the slop capitalism has been producing long before AI existed to make slop.

What LLMs can't do is write something based on a unique lived experience outside of its training data. Often what we consider good writing arises out of these unique, unknown lives, expressing a formulation that puts together relevant concepts in a particular society in unexpected ways. Now, LLMs can come up with unexpected formulations, precisely because what they're best at is seeing connections in their data. These connections are real themselves, but there is no one human life behind making or manifesting them. But to me this seems to mean primarily that LLMs won't be able to write a certain kind of great work of fiction. There is no reason it can't do quite a lot better than the mediocre crap we humans have been making for so long. Ultimately your argument is relying on the value of human life beyond just the artificial; and it is true this has great value, and that there is something to a book having been written by a real, human author. But how does this something relate to how good the work is? This isn't obvious. And in particular, does the goodness of life trump all other factors, such that garbage like The Hunger Games ought to be valued more highly than something an AI generated based on analysis of huge chunks of the human literary corpus? The answer to this second question is definitely no. That AI can do better than us doesn't make it better than humans; what it does is rightly devalue the actually mediocre stuff we value too highly.

And capitalism does a lot more than decide the prices of a book; it decides what we put prices on, and whether we sell books. (Though I hesitate to give credence to the notion of the "invisible hand"; it is people making decisions based on the systems they've constructed that do things, not magic market forces.)

Finally:


I got this one.