It’s crazy to watch the insane level of outrage that the existence and growth of AI produced content stirs up in some people when it seems obvious that the development of AI is unstoppable. It’s like watching people get angry at the first steam engines that appeared. I genuinely worry about their mental health over the next few years as they realise that being angry on the internet isn’t going to slow anything down at all.
Maybe if it wasn’t proliferating into every app and service whether useful or not I wouldn’t hate the living crap out of it. AI has it’s place, I do use it both at work and at home but I don’t need it every where.
Also one of the first victims was customer service pages, and most of them are crap.
It’s a paradigm shift and people always behave in unpredictable ways when those come around. It’ll settle down eventually into just being a part of normal life.
The usage of AI makes people stupider, which is a known fact. And you want it to become part of normal life?
Ai users (like you) ridicule users that don’t want to use it. It’s easier to use than to think.
AI users take what GPT says for truth even though the models continue to degrade.
Ai users don’t care about learning, they just want results.
Yeah no, if that’s supposed to be our future, I will gladly be hostile against it.
“Computers make people stupider” have also been a known fact when personal computers became common.
https://www.theregister.com/2001/02/05/computers_are_making_us_stupid/
I’m sure we can trace back “new thing makes people stupider” arguments back to Aristóteles. It’s a common human trope.
The link you posted is saying exactly what the problem actually, demonstrably is. In fact it’s hard to believe the page was written 25 years ago and not today, how perfectly it predicted the reality.
Did you even read it, or did you ask a computer to summarise the headline for you?You are using a computer right now. You should stop using any computer ASAP, don’t even use one to reply to this comment.
Edit: used a computer to click downvote, instead of delivering a hand painted arrow pointing down by mail. That must be -3 IQ points minimum.
Your strawman has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The fact that you resort to this obfuscation instead of actually facing the problem, suggests that perhaps your personal conviction is not so rational as you initially thought.
It’s amazing to watch people like you not get the point at all. It’s like you’re missing some piece of yourself and cannot understand why people appreciate the humanity behind art. And to act like we should just lie down and take it?
I’m sorry for whatever the fuck happened to you.
Unless AI became sentient and do things by itself, AI art still have humanity behind it. You not liking the tool the human used for making the art does not invalidate the humanity of the person who used that tool.
If like me going back a couple of centuries and saying that a photograph was not made by a human, but by a soulless machine. And that anyone who enjoys or makes photography is missing their humanity.
You cannot invalidate someone’s humanity. That’s against human rights or something.
You should go face to face with a person who made some image they like and love and put a lot of effort into it using AI tools, and say to them, face to face and looking them in the eyes “I do not consider you a human being”.
Same as people needed to travel and know other cultures to cure racism. The butlerian yihad needs to meet different people to cure something that’s quickly turning into bigotry.
“That’s against human rights or something” wow, real strong comeback, bud. For “art” created just using prompts I don’t consider that to have any real humanity but the person is still a person. I did not say otherwise.
I use Heroforge to make extremely high quality D&D minis and make use of the kitbashing feature to do even more custom shit. Even still I understand the difference between that program and pure 3D modelling and don’t go around telling people I’m a 3D modelling artist(I am, somewhat, but that’s using SketchUp and I design buildings). I also know artists who write scripts and do motion capture but have AI programs layer faces on top of that but they still did the lion’s share of the work. Entering in prompts is so many levels below any kind of true art, assisted or not, that it just frankly shouldn’t be considered as such. There needs to be a human element, and when there isn’t it’s hollow and gross.
If someone brought an AI musician to the weekly jam we’d say “cool, but we’re here to play with human beings right now.” If they told us they were a musican “just using tools” that would be a whole other level of insulting, too. The human element is important, especially if all AI is doing is stealing material off the internet anyway. Have you ever seen one of those movies where they try to create life and despite having all the parts there’s just no spark?
“AI” is being used in place of people’s humanity(that they do have, but are not putting into this “art”) and that’s fucked up.
Your definition on what constitutes putting “humanity” into a piece of art is completely arbitrary. Thus I, and any rational being, reject it.
If a human have a image in his head and put it on any media that’s putting “humanity” into art. You can do it with AI, so the debate is closed for me. I’ve had images in my head that, after a lot of work, I’ve been able to put into a bitmap. The accuracy in which you can translate the image is a matter of skill as with any art of trade. But it can certainly be done with great accuracy using AI tools.
So there’s no rational argument to say that AI art cannot have “humanity”. Unless you start talking about “souls” or something like that.
It’s not arbitrary, you just don’t understand it.
I’ve mentioned that using tools is not the end of the world, but slapping together boring prompts that yield stolen, poorly executed jokes is not art. Having AI rip-off other artists it found on the internet is not art. Asking it to write an entire song for you is not art. Most any other time where it’s a tool it’s just a complex algorithm and not really “AI” and it needs to be guided. Being a guide may or may not make someone much of an artist, depending on context.
The pursuit of art is worth more than the end result and I’ll be honest that I have no idea how to explain that to you if you still don’t get it.
Asking it to write an entire song for you is not art.
Please correct me if I misunderstand your point. Are you saying that produce is not art if it is made because someone threw money at the creator and told them “do something for me”?
Cause if that’s your point, then a whole lot of classical music, for instance, is not art, because it was commissioned.
I’m saying that the person commissioning the artwork is not themselves the artist, and even moreso I’m specifically talking about lazy prompters who are asking AI to essentially steal art.
I’m really not sure where you got that idea from, if I’m honest.
Photographers choose where to point their camera. I’ve used AI generators, they’re like the antithesis of choice. You can’t learn to speak the language of visual mediums if you just let the robot speak it for you.
and say to them, face to face and looking them in the eyes “I do not consider you a human being”.
Is this a challenge? I can knock it out by Friday.
For real though, these people are human beings—of course they are. But they’re removing themselves from their own projects. I want to see more of them in their own work. That’s the whole reason I’m even here; I can generate my own monkey throwing a banana, why would I need to see theirs?
I know people who takes hours in comfyUI making a workflow, tweaking aspects, choosing different nodes, adding several layers of different diffusion models.
You can use an AI generator just by making a prompt “make me a pretty giraffe” same I can take my phone a snap a quick picture. But same as a professional photographer can take hours chosing composition, camera configuration, then tweaking the result… a person who want to make a good AI image can take hours or days improving and tweaking the workflow.
For instance, this is a workflow example, a easy one, not even the most complex I’ve seen:
That could take a long time to make, because the person had a specific vision on what they want the tool to produce, and can really steer it into producing exactly what they want.
I think a lot of hate, as always, come mostly from ignorance. Once you know the time and effort that someone can put into this, it’s harder to discredit them.
a person who want to make a good AI image can take hours or days improving and tweaking the workflow.
No, no, you’re confusing effort with meaning. This is a literacy problem: I venture to guess you don’t even understand the distinction I’m drawing.
The most complicated comfyUI-whatever is worth less to me than a child’s drawing of their parents because the child’s drawing is communicating love while the generated one is communicating nothing.
I am being a tinge hyperbolic here, but I have yet to see anything made by AI-hornies that was worthy of discussion. The lot of them can’t even explain their own work—at best they can explain their comfyUI workflow because that’s the thing they actually put effort into.
If you want AI art to be taken seriously, you must understand what art is.
You must stop selfishly invading the space other artists inhabit: photography was a paradigm shift, yeah, but it still left room for painters to do their own thing. In the modern day, there is hardly confusion about whether something is or is not a photograph.
You must stop pretending that spectacle is all art aspires to be. So many people complain that they can’t be artists because they can’t draw a professional character portrait—who asked you? Who asked you to do that? Does Minecraft, one of the most beloved games of all time, care that its block textures are all 16x16 color smudges?
One of my favorite youtube channels, Any Austin, has a series where he finds and appreciates the odd, forgotten, unremarkable places in games that players often overlook. Liminal spaces that exist just to fill out the map. A valley between a mountain and a cliff that has nothing in it. The canopy above a forest hallway you’d normally only ever see once because a fast travel point exists just beyond it.
Now, nobody minds that Minecraft is procedurally generated: this is an algorithm in art. But you know what you can’t do in Minecraft? Talk about its liminal spaces. Any spaces like this that it might have can’t be shared unless someone has your world seed, and any questions you might have all have the same answer: “The algorithm just did it like that. I don’t know.” There is no story told in these walls.
This doesn’t mean that Minecraft is bad. This doesn’t mean Minecraft shouldn’t be procedurally generated. But something is lost here.
You must understand this if you want to be taken seriously.
The most complicated comfyUI-whatever is worth less to me than a child’s drawing of their parents because the child’s drawing is communicating love while the generated one is communicating nothing.
How can you say what the output of that workflow communicates or doesn’t communicate without seeing it?
The lot of them can’t even explain their own work—at best they can explain their comfyUI workflow because that’s the thing they actually put effort into.
That statement is unsubstantiated. Without knowing the creator of that workflow I venture the following proposition: If the creator put in hours of effort into constructing it, so the AI would produce just the right output, then they clearly had a vision of what they were going for. And If they tried to get a detail just right, then that detail must have meaning to them, or else they wouldn’t bother.
I see another issue with the statement “The lot of them can’t even explain their own work”. Do you think every stroke of the brush has a meaning for a painter? Is every note carefully chosen in a piece of music? Or is it rather a case of “doing what feels right at the moment”? I ask that because I don’t see the difference in playing a few chord progressions on the piano and seeing what fits best, and letting AI generate a few outputs and seeing what fits best.
How can you say what the output of that workflow communicates or doesn’t communicate without seeing it?
I’ve seen plenty.
Is every note carefully chosen in a piece of music?
Are you… being serious?
Look, I’ve been a musician longer than I’ve been any other kind of artist, and yes, I pick all of my notes. That’s the fun part, actually. There is a lot of deliberation over where they should go.
This is what I mean about you people not understanding the artistic process. Music is a language. People in a jam session are speaking words and phrases to each other. There are grammar rules to this language that work one way but in way another not.
If you’re using an LLM, then your jam partners aren’t speaking to you, they’re speaking to a robot. You may as well not even be there. And uh… I dunno, that just seems really fucking lonely.
So, genuine question.
What do you propose should happen with the advances of AI?
I propose you eat less hype about the slop generators. AI doesn’t exist, and there is no reason to believe that we’re closer to understanding if it’s even possible. Machine learning algorithms have their uses and are used already a lot, and nobody is against that, but that’s not AI. LLMs being pushed everywhere, and it’s never useful or particularly liked, and that’s not AI either. My hunch is that this bubble will pop, leaving an unpleasant odour behind, which we will have to deal with for years after, and then tech bros will come up with a new bullshit that revolutionises the world and disrupts the universe, because there is no meritocracy and the world is stupid.
What constitutes AI by your definition?
Something that has actual intelligence, or at least significant portion of building blocks of intelligence.
The problem, of course, is that intelligence is a complicated, complex, sprawling phenomenon, with no real ways to measure it as a whole, at least to any degree of reliability.
Learning, reasoning, critical thinking. Creativity, logic, problem solving, abstraction. Self-awareness, self-reflection, general sense of self. You need most of the elements of most of the groups (and probably more that is also important but I am missing right now) in order to even begin to talk about possibility of intelligence. Then somehow we will need to solve the philosophical zombie problem, and I don’t envy the researchers who will have to do that, but that’s way later down the line.
What we have right now very demonstrably doesn’t have almost any of those. What we call machine learning can be called learning in a very specific and reductive way, and whatever emerged phenomenon we observe from that is it’s own beast, but intelligence it is not. All the other boxes are not ticked, and some, like creativity or critical thinking, are the opposite of ticked. It might lead to something in the future (personally I doubt it, but can’t rule out), it might just as likely be something else, or nothing entirely.
I am very unsecure in my speculations on it, but those who have the most robust and optimistic answers right now are actually those who want to sell you something, and most of them are salespeople with the expertise of sales and nothing more.
How many fingers does that woman have
That is a good question! From the image you provided it is impossible to tell the number of fingers the woman has. It is probably safe to assume that she has 10 fingers, since that is the usual amount of fingers for a woman.
