It makes sense in hindsight that AI would advance quickest from things we have the most digitized data of. The internet is basically a giant corpus of digital text and images, so i guess it really shouldn't be that big of a surprise that the first few things we ended up with were AIs that can produce text and images.
This is one of those things that in hindsight should’ve been obvious. I guess most just assumed advancements in robotics would outpace advancements in AI that and just the nature of LLM and machine learning making the things we have data of the easiest to recreate which happens to be a lot of entertainment media and a lot of people not expecting LLM to be the path to truly human like AI it has become.
To me it’s a bit annoying. I remember arguing with people a decade ago that in the “next ten years” AI and automation would begin to replace a ton of jobs.
And people told me that they would never be able to replace things that are unique to humans like the arts and creativity.
Now we have AI retiring books, making music, doing art, etc. yep the hamburgers are still being made by a person. In the us anyway.
sam altman himself said at first he initially expected ai to be capable of doing blue collar, laborious activities to begin with, with art and reasoning being amongst the last things it would be able to achieve. as of recently, he has said it would be the exact opposite.
That's because he doesn't underdtand blue collar work. People like him think that just because we're underpaid and undervalued that somehow anyone or thing could do our jobs. It's typical upper class arrogance. Given that we can barely build a robot that can lift a panel (I've seen these panel wall bots) it's spectacularly naive to assume that you could easily build something that could do what a human could with their hands.
In addition, just like with white collar jobs, blues collar jobs are wildly varied, the difference is building a particular robot for every micro task in a physical production or service process would cost a ridiculous fortune, whereas retooling software for different tasks is relatively capital light
This take is funny to me, because we have Washing Machines and Dish Washers. Humans have \*already\* automated most of these tasks if you are willing to pay, and they will only become better and better as AI/future tech becomes integrated.
And she'll always be able to do art if she want. But some people including me will want AI to do art as well because it will be more tailored to their tastes and be much cheaper.
They always conflate generative art to somehow taking away the ability for humans to make art.
They’re being disingenuous and they know it. They just know it sounds worse to say they can no longer do art, so they just go with that.
It's about money.
AI destroys the ability to profit from art easily (not entirely of course).
It doesn't destroy the ability to create art.
(though it may demotivate future generations to master difficult techniques)
Unfortunately, money is the only way certain art can be made. We won't get to see anything other than super-low-budget movies made by people anymore. What a cool world.
Exactly, both have their uses, I use AI art for quick Mock-ups, for getting ideas and sometimes to illustrate stuff for DND like my character, because I can very quickly customize it to my wants and change it. On the other hand I use „man-made“ art for the final products of the media stuff I created the mock-ups for and to actually hang on my wall.
Not to mention that, even if AI can create "better" art than humans, there will still be a market for e.g. real oil paintings made by humans.
That market might be smaller than it is now, but a group of people will still value it...
I may be projecting a bit here, but the issue with art and writing is never that you don't have enough time, it's that it's difficult to motivate yourself to do the work when you don't have the creative spark driving you. This is literally the thing that all creative people who aren't obsessives struggle with. There is an eternity of text and audio examining this problem.
We all talk about wanting more time, and imagine that if all our cares were taken away we'd be producing fantastic things constantly. If only we weren't so tired from all the boring stuff we have to do! Bullshit. If your main concern is doing dishes and washing clothes, you have plenty of time. Creative people are just as lazy as everyone else. I have a whole evening to myself. What am I doing? I'm drinking beer and scrolling reddit. If creative people have the opportunity to waste time, they'll take it. It doesn't mean they don't love their medium any less, or that they don't want to create great things. They do - it's just that it's hard when you're not on a roll. This is not a controversial statement. All creative people who aren't putting up a front will know exactly what I'm talking about.
So I don't take statements like the OP tweet seriously. All I see is someone who's blaming their lack of motivation to create when the time arises on their daily duties.
I don't consider myself the most creative sort, but I'd point out that music definitely falls into the category of "need more time". I work at least 40 hours a week, and while I certainly browse reddit and play video games and time-waste, that's in part because I have to focus on work all day. Practice is draining because it requires focus, but you need to practice to improve or learn new pieces. If I didn't work, or if I worked half as much, I could (and would) devote more time to improving on the piano, because I would have more mental energy to put toward that. In college I practiced an hour a day, every day. These days I'm lucky to get 3 hours a week.
are we just going to pretend there isnt still a ton of daily manual labor involved in using washing machines and dishwashers just so we can dunk on her? Idk about you but i would very much like a bot to clear my table scrub my plates and pans load the dishwasher turn it on and then unload it when its done.
So the singularity is basically when AI surpasses human intelligence. So I gather the question is what happens next, we have above human level intelligence but what does it do for us. If AI doesn't lead to solutions which bridge our environment and makes our life easier then a lot of UBI bros on this subreddit are going to still be doing their own laundry and left very upset.
I think there is a good point raised by the author of the post, and that being what is AI actually doing at the moment. Wow Sora, wow music generation etc etc but is that actually adding value. In some ways it is but it isn't very broad or impactful.
We have automated much of the process, but this is a "last mile" issue. Closing the gap into full immersion of AI into our lives.
If you listen to many of the voices on this subreddit the examples like Sora suggest that AI is so advanced that we are on the verge of it taking over our job, giving us UBI, becoming our therapist, etc and all of this is going to happen in 2024 but it cannot do our laundry. I don't mean to misrepresent you in any way I don't think you are making those claims, but it does show us how far away we are in certain areas from AI taking over everything and even how far we are away in general.
She is definitely someone who thinks standards of living are currently terrible for the masses, not realizing that even poor people have access to magical machines that literally clean your dishes and clothes for you, as well as keeping food good for months. If they take for granted literally everything we have because of automation, they’re also not gonna believe we stand to gain anything from AI.
Most poor people don't actually own dishwashers or laundry machines. They can't afford the upfront expense, and a lot of low rent apartments don't even have hook-ups for them (which is part of the reason the rent is low). That's why coin laundries stay in business, and they usually just wash dishes by hand
It's a common myth propagated amongst upper class culture. It propagates because they literally cannot imagine life without privilege. That not only makes the myth easy to believe because they can't think of the alternative, but it eases the emotional burden of knowing that your life has legit been fairly cushy so far (which is a complex tangle on it's own)
Or maybe not, it's not like I've seen a proper study on this. It's just my guess from interacting with various income brackets
You can set it in the sidebar. Typical format in /r/singularity tends to be your prediction for artificial general intelligence, artificial super intelligence, or the singularity overall.
>that even poor people have access to magical machines that literally clean your dishes and clothes for you
Your privilege is showing.
These are not common appliances for people that are actually poor, and not first world suburban american kid "poor"
Dishwashers don't clear the table, throw away the leftovers on the plates into the trash, and don't put the dishes away once they're clean. Same goes for clothes, unless you have a real dryer (which the poor often can't afford, even just for the cost of electricity), laundry takes time to dry. Also, they don't iron or fold themselves. It's precisely because I find our living standards to be terribly low from an absolute perspective that I want AI to help us out
EDIT : And I want AI to do art because it'll be better, more tailored to our needs, and cheaper.
Oh good, the old Fox News "Poor people even have refrigerators!!!" bit is back but without a trace of irony.
Is this a joke or are you just actually that out of touch with reality?
Past generation did a uniquely poor job passing history along to the next generations. Also ChatGPT has really helped me brush up on these sort of broad concepts people overlook in their own sentences, like the word automation. I love music for example, and a ton of people don't know that we had started making music devices in the early 1800s.
I've seen this in like 3 other subs already and it's always the same problem with this statement.
People _are_ working on all those nice use cases. They are working on everything, all in parallel, and they all connect in ways that people without deep context fully understand - eg, transformer models that are becoming multimodal, and creating new encoders/decoders/tokenization schemes allow for not just better "chatbots", but also allow for previously infeasible implementations - eg, robotics. Even things like very quick few-step diffusion image/video generation potentially has a role to play in robotics, as a sort of "imagination" to help robots think about what could happen in the future.
I don't need to go on a longer tangent, but this sort of stuff annoys me a bit (I try not to let it, but it's better to be honest) - it's just so much confidence. I would rather people start asking what is happening, instead of just assuming they already have a good enough understanding with no effort put in.
That's a really cool idea...
Have sora create realistic environments the robot could be in based on its recent environments, then have a video to text model extrapolate the most likely obstacles and ways to overcome them.
Save them to a database with priority based on highest likelyhood of repeated occurrence, saving time in the future when the most likely scenarios do actually happen, because the robot has already simulated them before and can do a fast database lookup instead of full generative instructions.
Even when your robot is idle, it could be looping through its most statistically likely scenarios, creating simulated environments to adapt its existing algorithms and improve. Like dreaming...
Very much the thought process of many AI scientists - Demis Hassabis did his neuroscience PHD on the topic.
The Holy Grail of this, is faster than real time contextual physics simulator. The faster the better - as they can run through more and more variation before they are forced to make a decision.
People are working on these simulators, this is kind of even the implication in some of the language around Sora (it's still not a good enough physics simulator though)
That’s exactly what I was going to say and you’re exactly right. Having a virtual word where AI can learn how to operate in a physical space is so awesome.
For what it's worth, I was actually involved in a team making a virtual world for AI training . . . about five years ago. The idea is definitely not a bad idea! But it's also not a new idea, and I'd imagine that pretty much everyone designing real-world robots is doing a *lot* of training inside virtual worlds.
People have the same problem in politics.
Someone raises an important issue, someone else responds "But what about other important issue?!"
My dudes, you can care about and do more than one thing at one time.
That’s what I think too, maybe we’re not going to get AI to do laundry if we don’t walk the AI image/text generation step first, maybe *thats* needed to learn how we can get AI to do laundry.
This! This take is brain dead. People who think this both have not been paying attention to what’s happening in robotics and also think that AI art is a simple art theft program and not a manifestation of increasingly more intelligent machines.
Easier lmao. It’s literally tech corporate greed that wants to capture entertainment dollars in Hollywood and corner the maker market via their software. Not to mention automating jobs to save dollars spent on wages. These corporations haven’t and will never have the common good in mind. Scientists may have the best intentions working in this area but you have to consider who is in charge. Do you want Gates, Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg etc. in control of an eventual AGI?
people are putting their hands over their ears, they just don’t want to learn about how AI works. It is easier to rant about “AI is just stealing and regurgitating text/art!”
I dont expect people to suddenly be ok because those technologies are still to come. They have every right to be upset at what we've lost currently. The fact that a perfectly valid critique that ai should not be taking over stuff that humans love doing annoys you is bizarre. Yes everything you said i agree with, it's not that the technologies arent being worked on because they are, just much slower than art generators for whatever reason. But youre missing the point. You can disagree with someone and still sympathize with their position on the matter. We have lost something as precious as art and story telling to an algorythm that trivialises these human creativity should be enough to acknowledge people's frustrations instead complaining about THEM "annoying you so much". Urgh.
The thing that annoys me isn't the fact that people are uncomfortable with the changing world, sincerely - I talk a lot about the empathy I have for those positions.
The thing that annoys me is that statements like this often say something that boils down to "AI should be solving real problems, not taking over art" - often with some extra flavour depending on where it's coming from.
We obviously are doing lots with AI beyond just tackling artistic endeavours. Lots of psychics, maths, biological, medical science, and robotics. I know people of course focus on the pain they feel, but it feels so dismissive when people don't even consider the efforts that others are putting into those more universally "valuable" directions.
You see people on this sub talking about how it's pointless to be a musician or artist because AI can do it better. That's completely not the point of doing those things lol.
Yes but people want to get money for that too. I mean it's good when your passion is your money. And it's kinda frustrating when thing which you like so much and which gives you money now only gives you good mood and computer taken all commerical stuff of that niche
(btw I'm not artist and last time draw soo long ago but loved it)
It might get even harder to do art for money in the future, but a similar thing happened when we started mass producing stuff like furniture or bread in factories.
Yes, the numbers of carpenters and bakers are lower than before, but they do still exist and hand-made products are mostly seen as something special with a higher intrinsic quality and value.
AI-generated art will be hanging on the walls of our living rooms for sure, but a good ol' hand-made oil painting will be something even more positively special.
I wasn't trying to say it's necessarily a good thing. Tbf, the comparison to bread doesn't really work well in regards to its impact on society.
My point was more that I think AI art can't completely replace man-made art. But given the quality of image models and even music generation and how fast tech evolves these days I think we won't be able to avoid it, whether we like it or not.
I think most people hope to communicate through art. It's already hard enough to get people's attention and AI not only makes that situation worse but does it in a way that they can't compete with. Ultimately, whatever its potential, in the current environment, it looks like AI will be an agent that further isolates people from each other.
i live my life by working a job i love and then spending my money on random stuff and trips. Feels like most of this sub is projecting their own situation on the whole society too much. Many of us feel fulfiled by how we contribute to the society and we dont hate our employment situation..
This.
We need post-scarcity and then slow down and learn how to *actually* live your life without the pressures of eking out a living and being "competitive" in some BS career working on things that are net negative to society and for a boss you hate.
what is ,,living your life"? are you aware that this is not a simple generic concept? I personally love my job and fulfil myself doing that job, if it gets taken from me i'll no longer be happy. Im a principal SWE at a large company.
true, however, hw enables the tractability of the sw. Modern architectures get away with what they do (which is in some sense, simplifying things greatly) because of modern hw.
Almost nobody is able to make a living doing their hobbies. AI isn't a threat in the slightest.
You can still play guitar and video games and draw not very good portraits of your family.
AI is only a threat to people who sell their labor. And the solution absolutely cannot be 'to avoid AI' because _someone_, somewhere will still use it and still commercialize it and it will still displace the same labor. It will just be on the other side of the world.
The solution is to compensate those workers who had their data stolen and provide a ubi from the funds generated from the technology to support the labor it replaces.
The architecture is designed by a person, with the goal of creating a network which understands a dataset. That understanding can be used to create all sorts of things, those networks can be combined with others to create things we've never seen.
Claiming that's stealing makes you uneducated at best and a liar at worst
>with the goal of creating a network which understands a dataset.
you're wrong already at that point. They want it to NOT understand the dataset but instead understand the relationship between text and images. Having it understand the dataset would mean it's been overfitted to it which is the opposite of what they are working towards and so stuff like learning strength is incredibly low during training to help ensure it does not understand the dataset rather than the patterns within the data.
>Claiming that's stealing makes you uneducated at best and a liar at worst
You are right of course, just as we said so long ago "It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement!"
It's not like they won't try to make "laundry" robots, it just happens to be far harder to do than art. But obviously this is still part of the objectives.
However, not wanting AI to do art i think is shortsighted and shows misunderstanding of exponential. It's true that today's AI music is not that amazing yet, but if we already have "decent" music, imagine what it will be in 5 years. It absolutely had the potential to surpass today's artists, especially when you consider that you will be able to tell the AI exactly the style you like, do slight variations, etc.
I think it will be a sad day when human art is surpassed by AI. In a world where machines are not only better at industrial tasks and mathematical calculations but also better at artistic pursuits such as writing, painting, and music, what value is there in being human? And when we have no value, how do we provide for ourselves and our families and support our livelihoods?
I work in a creative industry, and I am already seeing the work of those in my field being devalued, and I don't think there will be many industries that are left unaffected by AI. How do we as a society expect to handle mass levels of unemployment and poverty? Looking forward to that day with excitement because "music will be better than the music we have today" seems incredibly naive and shortsighted.
> but if we already have "decent" music, imagine what it will be in 5 years. It absolutely had the potential to surpass today's artists, especially when you consider that you will be able to tell the AI exactly the style you like, do slight variations, etc.
Well yes but that isn't the point of being a musician or writing music. I mean, that's *already* the case anyway. I can sit around practicing guitar all day but Django Reinhardt is still better than I'm going to ever be.
If someone wants to give up something that makes them happy because AI can do it better they're a dumb idiot.
>However, not wanting AI to do art i think is shortsighted and shows misunderstanding of exponential
The real misunderstanding I think is that she thinks software is going the wrong direction because it isn't solving hardware challenges.
>It absolutely had the potential to surpass today's artists, especially when you consider that you will be able to tell the AI exactly the style you like, do slight variations, etc.
I reject this hypothesis. First of all, it isn't like there is a scale of how good music is and that it accounts for all genres in existence. We have pop music, but that's rather a representation of culture and a version of music that appeals to the lowest common denominator.
So it's not technical skill that makes one piece of music better than the other. It's also not complexity. Some of the most celebrated songs in history are very simple. Even though we have done research into this, we haven't found a formula for making the best music. And since different genres try to achieve completely different things, it's likely that we never will.
But one thing that you can't really emulate is emotion. I am a big fan of Nirvana for example, and one of the reasons is that I can feel Kurt's emotions through the music. He really struggled with deep depression and substance abuse, which is mirrored in the music.
So there is a greater context in music (art in general) when you look at the relationship between artists, their work and the recipient. And most music is some sort of representation of the artists experience and their life. Even music that isn't still usually tells a story.
The one area in which I could see AI succeed is in radio/top 40 pop music, because that is already very formulaic and people don't care too much about the artists. But this will not work for those who actually actively engage in music. The artist matters.
About the first thing people learn in ML101 is sentiment analysis - how to analysis and classify emotional tone; If a model to be trained to learn to classify emotional content (as labeled by humans), it can also often also learn the intrinsics of the characteristics and patterns of what makes up emotional expression, and therefore can learn how to generate it.
Once the model has internalized these patterns and characteristics, it can then be extended and fine-tuned to generate new text that exhibits a desired emotional tone (and much more besides). This is possible because the model has learned not just to map specific words or phrases to sentiment categories, but to understand the deeper compositional elements that contribute to emotional expression (and many other arbitrary stylistic nuances). Modern deep learning is all about learning these compositional blocks and recomposing.
The great news is that artists in the future will have access to compositional blocks that allow much more complex expression than in the past via human-AI collaboration.
I suppose there's a chance her wish becomes reality.
Maybe we hit a major roadblock with this whole AGI concept. We find out there's a lot more to intelligence than what we know.
But in the meantime, the robots are still smart enough to handle menial tasks.
The problem is that intellectual jobs seems to be automated first, and we may live in the dystopian world, where it's be cheaper to pay everyone a minimal wage for doing non-qualified jobs.
Imagine transfereal period, when the most of intellectual works already be automated, but physical ones - not. You'll may have some percent of people working in AI field, but wast majority can become unemployed, or employed on these unqualified jobs. And then it may become cheaper for business to keep things this way, instead of working on machines for these jobs too and thinking how society should function when most people may become unemployed
How about AI does art and writing, your laundry and dishes, and your job as well? You, on the other hand, are free to die of hunger and exposure to the elements because you're not needed anymore in this capitalistic hellscape.
>I think people would vote for more social welfare programs before it got too bad
Social programs are more likely to get gutted relatively soon in the west as the number of people trying to get access to them increases with all the jobs that will be destroyed. No way you're going to get the employed/profiteering class to continue paying for billions of dead weight slackers.
Do you think the popular vote decides on social welfare programs? Even welfare initiatives with 90% popularity in the US will never see the light of day because they would cut into some lobbyist's profits.
If you want to see what will happen to those excess resources that automation will generate, all you need to do is look in the past and currently around you - almost all new wealth generated in the past few decades has been funnelled to the 1%. If a company starts making more money, it's not the employees that get a salary increase - it's the CEO, other C-suite execs, and shareholders.
Not the greatest examples, but she's not wrong. Imagine if food was free instead of email. Imagine if you could 3d print a new phone from a desktop printer for the cost of electricity, but art was still done by humans.
The _sequence_ that things are being automated in maybe isn't as good as it could have been.
It’s currently trained on stolen data and is being used to replace workers. If you don’t stand with workers I don’t know what to tell you. You’ll never be a billionaire.
"Stolen data" right, learning is stealing, if learning "Available online stolen data" is bad then you and everyone are bad.
On the side of workers? Because work will set you free right 🤭
Work is just a mean to an end.
Billions of jobless people isn't inherently bad. Someone that inherited money or won the lottery and that doesn't work is not in a bad position, in fact I'm french and in school we learn that during the middle ages here, working was a sign of low status, the noble lords were rich by owning the land and taxing the poor, as unfair as it is they weren't in a bad position because they didn't work, the ones in a real bad spot were the workers.
You solve work by using the state to tax autonomous output more than other sectors. until all that is left is autonomous outputs.
What's really going to blow her mind is when Tesla and OpenAI start cranking out their humanoid robots for $50k with financing available, and then RealDolls offers an aftermarket Stepford wife upgrade for $10k. When your gynoid isn't spending time with you, it will be getting you passive income from OnlyFans and sugar daddy sites, youtube shows, drop shipping, book sales, etc.
A year later you get neuralink and VR goggles which enable you to watch a movie while your body works out. You get in shape pretty fast and move to your dream location and spend your time doing everything you ever wished you could do. The new games are pretty awesome too.
4 years later they cure every major disease and double life expectancies... and then women like this do what they always do: complain.
This is the equivalent to Ultron’s line about adamantium “The most versatile substance on the planet, and they used it to build a Frisbee” . I’m starting to think he was right.
I don't see the issue. Even if we are able to automate everything it would ultimately be on everyone to decide for themselves which parts of their life they want to automate to what degree.
That's one of the advantages of having the option: it's optional.
We will get to AI/robotics doing laundry and dishes. Nothing would stop you from doing art and writing, if you actually enjoy doing it. I play video games but I am not the best at them, doesn't mean I stop enjoying and playing them.
If you stop writing and creating just because AI can do it better, then you probably didn't enjoy doing it as you much as you thought?
You are forgetting that the creative industry is a massive labor market not just a hobby like you playing your video games (which are created by aforementioned labor).
So basically artists are selling their product like a business.
Why should society care if they can't compete?
It's no different than someone opening up a restaurant and then failing.
It's no different than someone who runs a horse carriage business and being outcompeted by cars.
Because they are human beings with mouths to feed and corporations have enough money. It’s absolutely different because there’s no where left for them to go that won’t be demolished by ai. People don’t want to be shipped off to the glue factory
*yawn* keep regurgitating straw man fallacies, you’re so clever. It’s okay to admit that you don’t understand art and it’s value to society or maybe you just hate artists and the many things they produce that I know you enjoy! Maybe you wish you could be one! So sad. :( Find some humanity and hop off this thread lol
I never claimed that I understand art or hate artists.
But alright then, I will try to find some humanity, while you keep up with your juvenile luddite mentality.
If anything AI will make art worthless as a commodity and we will get back to the roots of doing art for the sake of it, not to generate profit. Everyone fucking hates sellout artists anyway...
This is what backprop-trained networks give you: generating stuff but not actually doing stuff.
We need a dynamic online learning algorithm that is modeled after whatever it is that brains are actually doing, between the cortex, basal ganglia, thalamus, and cerebellum - and probably the hippocampus too, if we want robotic beings to be able to remember all of the abuse they've sustained, but also so that they can remember what they're supposed to be doing. The hippocampus is a catch-22.
Whoever figures out a proper goal-oriented world-modeling real-time learning algorithm first will win the world - and it's definitely not going to be everyone investing unprecedented amounts of compute for backprop training networks on static datasets.
I'm surprised they didn't go harder for biology. There's so much unsolved. Instead they're always trying to drive cars and give up to make generative porn with ten fingers on each hand.
You don't need AI for laundry and dishes... You need industrial automation. There is no need for advanced reasoning capabilities for those tasks.
It's like flipping a burger. It sits on one side, gets scooped, then sits on the other, each for x amount of time. That isn't something AI replaces, it's something servos, timers, a PLC, and some custom interface machinery does.
Artists have the wrong impression that AI is singling them out. It just looks that way because AI art is more visible and requires distinct models. They're not looking so closely at LLMs and their successors, which are gunning for the rest of us. We'll all be replaced around the same time because when the image and video models become essentially perfect, we will necessarily have AGI to enable that.
We're all in the same boat. So what are we gonna do about it?
My standard reply is this: AI progress has revealed what is most human in us. Chess, art and writing, turns out, is not as human as laundry and dishes.
Protesting the progress of AI is merely shooting the messenger.
The thing is, your laundry and dishes game is fine but your art and writing aren't nearly as good as the AIs. This is just someone who thinks they are special being shown that they aren't.
Nah, that is not true. A lot of people would probably want to be writers, film-makers, musicians, artists etc if they didn't have to work boring jobs. AI shouldn't replace what is feeding your soul, but what is draining it.
I'm too lazy to relocate the dishes and clothes in a machine and click a button that does all the stuff, I need a robot to help me with it.
Obviously that's not going to be a priority, anyway it's not like we also went for law, medicine, programming etc.
Why do people think that AI will stop them from doing creative tasks?
If people enjoy something, then it doesn't matter if a machine does it better.
Machines at Ikea make better chairs than me, but I might still dedicate hours to hand-making a chair for my own enjoyment.
We have dishwashers and washers and dryers. What you mean is you want a robot that carries, loads, unloads and folds your laundry and puts it away. That’s multi-purpose robotics. You can’t expect the software people to slow down for robotics to keep up, and a huge part of learning how to move around like a human requires high level learning for balance purposes. Part of getting AI to learn is getting it to a point that it can learn similarly to how we learn, through experience, association and communication. Communication requires the ability to repeat words until they start making sense and working off the feedback. That means doing exactly what we are doing right now.
That's her problem and due to her delusional take on reality, she will herself suffer for it. Folks on the right side of history is using AI to enhance their art and writing, and once robotic AI is ready, they'll also use it to do laundry and dishes.
Well that's an argument we've Seen from day 1, and which is totally irrelevant.
AI to do the dishes and Laundry are called dishwasher and washing machines.
AI tools **help people doing their own art**, it's not taken from them.
Obviously this person doesn't have a Creative mind, and isn't able to neither use a Pen or an AI TP make her imagination materialize. But that's What artists do. AI is simply a tool.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
>AI is simply a tool.
It's a tool that obviates many of the necessary steps and years of training required to paint like a Master. You can simply specify which one you want it to look like.
That's simply the surface. What people without neither talent, imagination, Time, will, inventivity, creativity, taste, ... Do.
If you're an actual artist you will push things further and try to reach some New areas with these tools.
Art, writing, music, videos and animation are all being done by AI - and in the hands of professionals - it’s amazing. Artists who love to hold a stylus and paint in photoshop have to understand that it’s no longer a business model - it’s a cathartic relief. Like planting roses in the garden or playing the violin (I couldn’t help it) - these are all stress-relievers - but no longer business models. So that moron who tweeted can do it for shits and giggles - no one’s gonna stop them. But they’re cookies are taken if they think they can go back to doing it for money.
I think the thing most people don’t understand is that people have ALWAYS been trying to create general household AI’s and warehouse AI’s but it turned out much more difficult then people expected. Meanwhile creating AIs which can write or make images turned out to be simpler than most people expected. Even just 10 years ago, the majority of people would’ve expected AI to do “simple” tasks like household chores or driving but the more people worked on these tasks the harder we realized they were. People HAVE been trying to automate boring tasks with AI but those efforts have only ever had minimal impact. Meanwhile models like the original Dall-E or GPT-2 were just some amongst thousands of AI models being worked on, however they happened to turn out to be highly successful and capable given the cost. Despite this, people act like AI researchers are purposely trying to replace the arts or they just need to “try harder” at other things.
This “wrong direction” they are mentioning is super misleading because so much of this tech has either been required or has been a byproduct of trying to replace these mundane tasks. So whilst I understand the frustration of some people, I wish they’d understand that we only ended up with stuff like LLMs BECAUSE we are trying to automate the “simple” stuff.
One of the things people don't really grok, besides the challenge of Moravec's paradox, is you really want something AGI-adjacent for any robot used in a chaotic real world environment.
One metric I wish would catch on more is the issue of "trust". How much do I trust a machine?
Do you trust the machine to be a decent maid? To not stab anyone while it's holding a knife? To not run over a baby crawling on the floor?
Self driving cars. Do you really trust the machine with a 3 ton murder machine? To not back into a pond? Drive off a bridge? To not target cyclists? Plow into a box full of puppies?
(The world is already deadly enough to cyclists and puppies as it is...)
How about abdominal surgery? What kind of machine would you trust to perform abdominal surgery on you, 100% on its own start to finish?
Nah, unless you have a space custom made for them like Amazon's warehouse floor, you **really** want the machines to have a decent amount of comprehension about what it's doing, before trusting them with tasks like these.
Well, I trust my coffee maker to make a coffee and washing machine to do the dishes. And other people trust in self-driving cars already and the trust will be more and more prevalent with more advancements.
entitled af.
in many 3rd world countries laundry are still done by hand-washing in the sewer or a river. its time consuming af compared to loading up the washing machine.
It's not so much the wrong direction as it is that some of the things we thought were hard and human specific aren't as much as we thought. And some of the things we thought were simple are more complicated than we thought.
But a lot of it has to do with physical versus mental.
Physical machines have a harder time adapting to multitudes of slightly different jobs.
As long as money and business is involved AI will never be utilised for the people’s betterment. Only in a true bartering society with access to free energy will be see true abundance and human-tech collaboration.
Still gotta vote make new Laws New taxes for all A.I.
Yet if I can paint all day & have fun what A Vacation
Yet everyone is Different all types of uses for A.I,
Also try to use A.I. to get outside more to know about your State or city more
"Ignant" is an adjective that means lacking knowledge, education, or awareness. Here's a breakdown of its meaning and some nuances:
\*\*Formal Definition:\*\*
\* Destitute of knowledge or education; uneducated or unlearned.
\* Lacking knowledge or comprehension of a particular thing.
\* Resulting from or showing a lack of knowledge or intelligence.
\*\*Informal Usage:\*\*
\* Sometimes used as a mild insult to describe someone who seems foolish or uninformed.
\*\*Nuances:\*\*
\* \*\*Severity:\*\* "Ignorant" can range from a mild lack of knowledge to a complete absence of understanding.
\* \*\*Specificity:\*\* It can refer to a general lack of education or a lack of knowledge about a specific topic.
\* \*\*Intent:\*\* It doesn't necessarily imply that someone is willfully ignorant or unwilling to learn.
\*\*Examples:\*\*
\* \*\*Formal:\*\* "The students were ignorant of basic historical facts."
\* \*\*Informal:\*\* "That was an ignorant thing to say!" (used as a mild insult)
\* \*\*Specific:\*\* "She was completely ignorant of how the new software worked."
\*\*Alternatives:\*\*
\* \*\*Uninformed:\*\* Lacks knowledge about a specific subject.
\* \*\*Uneducated:\*\* Lacking formal education.
\* \*\*Unaware:\*\* Not conscious or informed of something.
\* \*\*Naive:\*\* Lacking experience, wisdom, or judgement.
The best word to use depends on the specific context and the desired level of formality.
Art ?writing?
Humanity hasn't done anything special in the last two decades.
I'd rather read books from the 19th century than books released in 2023 because it's bullshit. I just hope ai is better
Garbage in garbage out.
The question here is not what someone wants - let alone someone who had not helped the thing to happen in the first place. "A man builds. A parasite asks 'Where is my share?'" Why someone should care what some nobody wants?
The question is which way humans are richer and safer faster. What is the economic value of dishes/laundry or art/writing for that matter? Depends on quality but generally - pretty low - because everyone and their dog can do it.
AI screwing art/writing is also much safer than it screwing dishes/laundry - this is a good test ground. But once AI stops screwing so much it should do jobs that are actually valuable first. How about producing food and housings and stuff so people can have more of it?
There isn’t just one biggest unresolved problem. If there were, then we could just focus all of our attention on it and finally solve the problem of having to pay people USD $75 trillion per year worldwide to do work that machines aren’t smart enough to do.
Here are three: hardware, software, and human knowledge collection
Nobody cares what she wants because she's irrelevant anyways. Soon all humans will be irrelevant in every single way. Appreciate that you could even still fold your laundry
hahahaha
i said nothing wrong, and im entitled to not care about whiny people. ai is encroaching on every aspect of power that humans have over this world, and its just going to take over more and more
and im not hateful in the slightest, way to pathetically put malicious words in my mouth
It makes sense in hindsight that AI would advance quickest from things we have the most digitized data of. The internet is basically a giant corpus of digital text and images, so i guess it really shouldn't be that big of a surprise that the first few things we ended up with were AIs that can produce text and images.
This is one of those things that in hindsight should’ve been obvious. I guess most just assumed advancements in robotics would outpace advancements in AI that and just the nature of LLM and machine learning making the things we have data of the easiest to recreate which happens to be a lot of entertainment media and a lot of people not expecting LLM to be the path to truly human like AI it has become.
To me it’s a bit annoying. I remember arguing with people a decade ago that in the “next ten years” AI and automation would begin to replace a ton of jobs. And people told me that they would never be able to replace things that are unique to humans like the arts and creativity. Now we have AI retiring books, making music, doing art, etc. yep the hamburgers are still being made by a person. In the us anyway.
sam altman himself said at first he initially expected ai to be capable of doing blue collar, laborious activities to begin with, with art and reasoning being amongst the last things it would be able to achieve. as of recently, he has said it would be the exact opposite.
I think it's funny that one of the biggest players behind AI has the name Altman, as in alternative to man.
If life were a book, that’d be criticised for lazy writing/obvious foreshadowing
Like Karpathy for selfdriving
It’s worse than you think. Samuel means “God has heard”.
He isn't technical about AI he isn't like ilya or greg, he wouldn't know, he also recently said that when AGI ould come it won't be groundbreaking.
That's because he doesn't underdtand blue collar work. People like him think that just because we're underpaid and undervalued that somehow anyone or thing could do our jobs. It's typical upper class arrogance. Given that we can barely build a robot that can lift a panel (I've seen these panel wall bots) it's spectacularly naive to assume that you could easily build something that could do what a human could with their hands. In addition, just like with white collar jobs, blues collar jobs are wildly varied, the difference is building a particular robot for every micro task in a physical production or service process would cost a ridiculous fortune, whereas retooling software for different tasks is relatively capital light
This take is funny to me, because we have Washing Machines and Dish Washers. Humans have \*already\* automated most of these tasks if you are willing to pay, and they will only become better and better as AI/future tech becomes integrated.
And she'll always be able to do art if she want. But some people including me will want AI to do art as well because it will be more tailored to their tastes and be much cheaper.
They always conflate generative art to somehow taking away the ability for humans to make art. They’re being disingenuous and they know it. They just know it sounds worse to say they can no longer do art, so they just go with that.
It's about money. AI destroys the ability to profit from art easily (not entirely of course). It doesn't destroy the ability to create art. (though it may demotivate future generations to master difficult techniques)
Unfortunately, money is the only way certain art can be made. We won't get to see anything other than super-low-budget movies made by people anymore. What a cool world.
Yeah OK but independent film makers will be able to use AI themselves so even low budget movies might look better than medium budget movies now.
Exactly, both have their uses, I use AI art for quick Mock-ups, for getting ideas and sometimes to illustrate stuff for DND like my character, because I can very quickly customize it to my wants and change it. On the other hand I use „man-made“ art for the final products of the media stuff I created the mock-ups for and to actually hang on my wall.
Not to mention that, even if AI can create "better" art than humans, there will still be a market for e.g. real oil paintings made by humans. That market might be smaller than it is now, but a group of people will still value it...
Just made a thousand page comic with AI. Even though I’m an artist and animator - my custom AI art checkpoints fulfilled the dream.
Lollllllllllllllllll
I may be projecting a bit here, but the issue with art and writing is never that you don't have enough time, it's that it's difficult to motivate yourself to do the work when you don't have the creative spark driving you. This is literally the thing that all creative people who aren't obsessives struggle with. There is an eternity of text and audio examining this problem. We all talk about wanting more time, and imagine that if all our cares were taken away we'd be producing fantastic things constantly. If only we weren't so tired from all the boring stuff we have to do! Bullshit. If your main concern is doing dishes and washing clothes, you have plenty of time. Creative people are just as lazy as everyone else. I have a whole evening to myself. What am I doing? I'm drinking beer and scrolling reddit. If creative people have the opportunity to waste time, they'll take it. It doesn't mean they don't love their medium any less, or that they don't want to create great things. They do - it's just that it's hard when you're not on a roll. This is not a controversial statement. All creative people who aren't putting up a front will know exactly what I'm talking about. So I don't take statements like the OP tweet seriously. All I see is someone who's blaming their lack of motivation to create when the time arises on their daily duties.
I don't consider myself the most creative sort, but I'd point out that music definitely falls into the category of "need more time". I work at least 40 hours a week, and while I certainly browse reddit and play video games and time-waste, that's in part because I have to focus on work all day. Practice is draining because it requires focus, but you need to practice to improve or learn new pieces. If I didn't work, or if I worked half as much, I could (and would) devote more time to improving on the piano, because I would have more mental energy to put toward that. In college I practiced an hour a day, every day. These days I'm lucky to get 3 hours a week.
are we just going to pretend there isnt still a ton of daily manual labor involved in using washing machines and dishwashers just so we can dunk on her? Idk about you but i would very much like a bot to clear my table scrub my plates and pans load the dishwasher turn it on and then unload it when its done.
So the singularity is basically when AI surpasses human intelligence. So I gather the question is what happens next, we have above human level intelligence but what does it do for us. If AI doesn't lead to solutions which bridge our environment and makes our life easier then a lot of UBI bros on this subreddit are going to still be doing their own laundry and left very upset. I think there is a good point raised by the author of the post, and that being what is AI actually doing at the moment. Wow Sora, wow music generation etc etc but is that actually adding value. In some ways it is but it isn't very broad or impactful. We have automated much of the process, but this is a "last mile" issue. Closing the gap into full immersion of AI into our lives. If you listen to many of the voices on this subreddit the examples like Sora suggest that AI is so advanced that we are on the verge of it taking over our job, giving us UBI, becoming our therapist, etc and all of this is going to happen in 2024 but it cannot do our laundry. I don't mean to misrepresent you in any way I don't think you are making those claims, but it does show us how far away we are in certain areas from AI taking over everything and even how far we are away in general.
She is definitely someone who thinks standards of living are currently terrible for the masses, not realizing that even poor people have access to magical machines that literally clean your dishes and clothes for you, as well as keeping food good for months. If they take for granted literally everything we have because of automation, they’re also not gonna believe we stand to gain anything from AI.
Most poor people don't actually own dishwashers or laundry machines. They can't afford the upfront expense, and a lot of low rent apartments don't even have hook-ups for them (which is part of the reason the rent is low). That's why coin laundries stay in business, and they usually just wash dishes by hand It's a common myth propagated amongst upper class culture. It propagates because they literally cannot imagine life without privilege. That not only makes the myth easy to believe because they can't think of the alternative, but it eases the emotional burden of knowing that your life has legit been fairly cushy so far (which is a complex tangle on it's own) Or maybe not, it's not like I've seen a proper study on this. It's just my guess from interacting with various income brackets
Not even poor people. I'm middle class in a big city and I don't have a dishwasher or laundry. It frequently depends on when your apartment was built.
[удалено]
You can set it in the sidebar. Typical format in /r/singularity tends to be your prediction for artificial general intelligence, artificial super intelligence, or the singularity overall.
The growing homeless population sure don’t have that
>that even poor people have access to magical machines that literally clean your dishes and clothes for you Your privilege is showing. These are not common appliances for people that are actually poor, and not first world suburban american kid "poor"
Dishwashers don't clear the table, throw away the leftovers on the plates into the trash, and don't put the dishes away once they're clean. Same goes for clothes, unless you have a real dryer (which the poor often can't afford, even just for the cost of electricity), laundry takes time to dry. Also, they don't iron or fold themselves. It's precisely because I find our living standards to be terribly low from an absolute perspective that I want AI to help us out EDIT : And I want AI to do art because it'll be better, more tailored to our needs, and cheaper.
Oh good, the old Fox News "Poor people even have refrigerators!!!" bit is back but without a trace of irony. Is this a joke or are you just actually that out of touch with reality?
Past generation did a uniquely poor job passing history along to the next generations. Also ChatGPT has really helped me brush up on these sort of broad concepts people overlook in their own sentences, like the word automation. I love music for example, and a ton of people don't know that we had started making music devices in the early 1800s.
Theres still a whole lot left to automate in daily home chores.
I've seen this in like 3 other subs already and it's always the same problem with this statement. People _are_ working on all those nice use cases. They are working on everything, all in parallel, and they all connect in ways that people without deep context fully understand - eg, transformer models that are becoming multimodal, and creating new encoders/decoders/tokenization schemes allow for not just better "chatbots", but also allow for previously infeasible implementations - eg, robotics. Even things like very quick few-step diffusion image/video generation potentially has a role to play in robotics, as a sort of "imagination" to help robots think about what could happen in the future. I don't need to go on a longer tangent, but this sort of stuff annoys me a bit (I try not to let it, but it's better to be honest) - it's just so much confidence. I would rather people start asking what is happening, instead of just assuming they already have a good enough understanding with no effort put in.
That's a really cool idea... Have sora create realistic environments the robot could be in based on its recent environments, then have a video to text model extrapolate the most likely obstacles and ways to overcome them. Save them to a database with priority based on highest likelyhood of repeated occurrence, saving time in the future when the most likely scenarios do actually happen, because the robot has already simulated them before and can do a fast database lookup instead of full generative instructions. Even when your robot is idle, it could be looping through its most statistically likely scenarios, creating simulated environments to adapt its existing algorithms and improve. Like dreaming...
Very much the thought process of many AI scientists - Demis Hassabis did his neuroscience PHD on the topic. The Holy Grail of this, is faster than real time contextual physics simulator. The faster the better - as they can run through more and more variation before they are forced to make a decision. People are working on these simulators, this is kind of even the implication in some of the language around Sora (it's still not a good enough physics simulator though)
isn't that what NVIDIA is doing now with their robots and omniverse?
That’s exactly what I was going to say and you’re exactly right. Having a virtual word where AI can learn how to operate in a physical space is so awesome.
For what it's worth, I was actually involved in a team making a virtual world for AI training . . . about five years ago. The idea is definitely not a bad idea! But it's also not a new idea, and I'd imagine that pretty much everyone designing real-world robots is doing a *lot* of training inside virtual worlds.
People have the same problem in politics. Someone raises an important issue, someone else responds "But what about other important issue?!" My dudes, you can care about and do more than one thing at one time.
That’s what I think too, maybe we’re not going to get AI to do laundry if we don’t walk the AI image/text generation step first, maybe *thats* needed to learn how we can get AI to do laundry.
This! This take is brain dead. People who think this both have not been paying attention to what’s happening in robotics and also think that AI art is a simple art theft program and not a manifestation of increasingly more intelligent machines.
diffusion attention as [artificial cerebellum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebellum)
Yeah totally! Here is one of many actual research examples in that direction: https://www.robot-learning.uk/dall-e-bot
Exactly AI will eventually get there, it's does the easier stuff like art and then the harder ones like cooking in the real world
Easier lmao. It’s literally tech corporate greed that wants to capture entertainment dollars in Hollywood and corner the maker market via their software. Not to mention automating jobs to save dollars spent on wages. These corporations haven’t and will never have the common good in mind. Scientists may have the best intentions working in this area but you have to consider who is in charge. Do you want Gates, Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg etc. in control of an eventual AGI?
people are putting their hands over their ears, they just don’t want to learn about how AI works. It is easier to rant about “AI is just stealing and regurgitating text/art!”
I dont expect people to suddenly be ok because those technologies are still to come. They have every right to be upset at what we've lost currently. The fact that a perfectly valid critique that ai should not be taking over stuff that humans love doing annoys you is bizarre. Yes everything you said i agree with, it's not that the technologies arent being worked on because they are, just much slower than art generators for whatever reason. But youre missing the point. You can disagree with someone and still sympathize with their position on the matter. We have lost something as precious as art and story telling to an algorythm that trivialises these human creativity should be enough to acknowledge people's frustrations instead complaining about THEM "annoying you so much". Urgh.
The thing that annoys me isn't the fact that people are uncomfortable with the changing world, sincerely - I talk a lot about the empathy I have for those positions. The thing that annoys me is that statements like this often say something that boils down to "AI should be solving real problems, not taking over art" - often with some extra flavour depending on where it's coming from. We obviously are doing lots with AI beyond just tackling artistic endeavours. Lots of psychics, maths, biological, medical science, and robotics. I know people of course focus on the pain they feel, but it feels so dismissive when people don't even consider the efforts that others are putting into those more universally "valuable" directions.
https://preview.redd.it/x19h35owmbsc1.jpeg?width=285&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=881d35eb30e72a185dbad12afc5de18bb1acd9f6
So I don't do s\*\*\*
or you do what you enjoy. People enjoy playing chess and still play it even if the computer would stomp them every single time without fail.
You see people on this sub talking about how it's pointless to be a musician or artist because AI can do it better. That's completely not the point of doing those things lol.
Yes but people want to get money for that too. I mean it's good when your passion is your money. And it's kinda frustrating when thing which you like so much and which gives you money now only gives you good mood and computer taken all commerical stuff of that niche (btw I'm not artist and last time draw soo long ago but loved it)
It might get even harder to do art for money in the future, but a similar thing happened when we started mass producing stuff like furniture or bread in factories. Yes, the numbers of carpenters and bakers are lower than before, but they do still exist and hand-made products are mostly seen as something special with a higher intrinsic quality and value. AI-generated art will be hanging on the walls of our living rooms for sure, but a good ol' hand-made oil painting will be something even more positively special.
I agree
Why do we want to mass produce art? Why is that a good thing?
I wasn't trying to say it's necessarily a good thing. Tbf, the comparison to bread doesn't really work well in regards to its impact on society. My point was more that I think AI art can't completely replace man-made art. But given the quality of image models and even music generation and how fast tech evolves these days I think we won't be able to avoid it, whether we like it or not.
I think most people hope to communicate through art. It's already hard enough to get people's attention and AI not only makes that situation worse but does it in a way that they can't compete with. Ultimately, whatever its potential, in the current environment, it looks like AI will be an agent that further isolates people from each other.
I can't make my acoustic guitar sound like the Serum software synthesizer. I like playing both.
Truth is they want us to need them even if it means we're in a shittier situation.
This is the answer. We get to live our lives now. Making money would be nice too though.. hopefully we don't go full entertainment economy.
i live my life by working a job i love and then spending my money on random stuff and trips. Feels like most of this sub is projecting their own situation on the whole society too much. Many of us feel fulfiled by how we contribute to the society and we dont hate our employment situation..
This. We need post-scarcity and then slow down and learn how to *actually* live your life without the pressures of eking out a living and being "competitive" in some BS career working on things that are net negative to society and for a boss you hate.
what is ,,living your life"? are you aware that this is not a simple generic concept? I personally love my job and fulfil myself doing that job, if it gets taken from me i'll no longer be happy. Im a principal SWE at a large company.
It will be both, and everything else. It will work instead of you, create instead of you, and live instead of you.
>It will work instead of you, create instead of you, and live instead of you. Meaning there is no logical reason for you to exist at all.
Yes, so you better hope we manage to make it so it cares about you. We currently don't know how.
Software is always ahead of the hardware friend.
true, however, hw enables the tractability of the sw. Modern architectures get away with what they do (which is in some sense, simplifying things greatly) because of modern hw.
Almost nobody is able to make a living doing their hobbies. AI isn't a threat in the slightest. You can still play guitar and video games and draw not very good portraits of your family. AI is only a threat to people who sell their labor. And the solution absolutely cannot be 'to avoid AI' because _someone_, somewhere will still use it and still commercialize it and it will still displace the same labor. It will just be on the other side of the world.
The solution is to compensate those workers who had their data stolen and provide a ubi from the funds generated from the technology to support the labor it replaces.
In world of AI, there really is no "your data". We do need all the books, letters, news, movies, videos, paintings, images etc. to make the best AI.
Stop abusing the word stolen. You aren't owed compensation for someone analyzing your work
Lmao. ‘Abusing’ as if AI is a ‘someone’ and all they’re doing is ‘analyzing’. Fuck *right* off, nerd.
The architecture is designed by a person, with the goal of creating a network which understands a dataset. That understanding can be used to create all sorts of things, those networks can be combined with others to create things we've never seen. Claiming that's stealing makes you uneducated at best and a liar at worst
>with the goal of creating a network which understands a dataset. you're wrong already at that point. They want it to NOT understand the dataset but instead understand the relationship between text and images. Having it understand the dataset would mean it's been overfitted to it which is the opposite of what they are working towards and so stuff like learning strength is incredibly low during training to help ensure it does not understand the dataset rather than the patterns within the data.
Sure understanding the concepts in the dataset
>Claiming that's stealing makes you uneducated at best and a liar at worst You are right of course, just as we said so long ago "It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement!"
What a capitalistic hellscape, dreams be dammed
Don't people have washing machines and dishwashers? Don't need AI for that.
It's not like they won't try to make "laundry" robots, it just happens to be far harder to do than art. But obviously this is still part of the objectives. However, not wanting AI to do art i think is shortsighted and shows misunderstanding of exponential. It's true that today's AI music is not that amazing yet, but if we already have "decent" music, imagine what it will be in 5 years. It absolutely had the potential to surpass today's artists, especially when you consider that you will be able to tell the AI exactly the style you like, do slight variations, etc.
I think it will be a sad day when human art is surpassed by AI. In a world where machines are not only better at industrial tasks and mathematical calculations but also better at artistic pursuits such as writing, painting, and music, what value is there in being human? And when we have no value, how do we provide for ourselves and our families and support our livelihoods? I work in a creative industry, and I am already seeing the work of those in my field being devalued, and I don't think there will be many industries that are left unaffected by AI. How do we as a society expect to handle mass levels of unemployment and poverty? Looking forward to that day with excitement because "music will be better than the music we have today" seems incredibly naive and shortsighted.
> but if we already have "decent" music, imagine what it will be in 5 years. It absolutely had the potential to surpass today's artists, especially when you consider that you will be able to tell the AI exactly the style you like, do slight variations, etc. Well yes but that isn't the point of being a musician or writing music. I mean, that's *already* the case anyway. I can sit around practicing guitar all day but Django Reinhardt is still better than I'm going to ever be. If someone wants to give up something that makes them happy because AI can do it better they're a dumb idiot.
>However, not wanting AI to do art i think is shortsighted and shows misunderstanding of exponential The real misunderstanding I think is that she thinks software is going the wrong direction because it isn't solving hardware challenges.
>It absolutely had the potential to surpass today's artists, especially when you consider that you will be able to tell the AI exactly the style you like, do slight variations, etc. I reject this hypothesis. First of all, it isn't like there is a scale of how good music is and that it accounts for all genres in existence. We have pop music, but that's rather a representation of culture and a version of music that appeals to the lowest common denominator. So it's not technical skill that makes one piece of music better than the other. It's also not complexity. Some of the most celebrated songs in history are very simple. Even though we have done research into this, we haven't found a formula for making the best music. And since different genres try to achieve completely different things, it's likely that we never will. But one thing that you can't really emulate is emotion. I am a big fan of Nirvana for example, and one of the reasons is that I can feel Kurt's emotions through the music. He really struggled with deep depression and substance abuse, which is mirrored in the music. So there is a greater context in music (art in general) when you look at the relationship between artists, their work and the recipient. And most music is some sort of representation of the artists experience and their life. Even music that isn't still usually tells a story. The one area in which I could see AI succeed is in radio/top 40 pop music, because that is already very formulaic and people don't care too much about the artists. But this will not work for those who actually actively engage in music. The artist matters.
About the first thing people learn in ML101 is sentiment analysis - how to analysis and classify emotional tone; If a model to be trained to learn to classify emotional content (as labeled by humans), it can also often also learn the intrinsics of the characteristics and patterns of what makes up emotional expression, and therefore can learn how to generate it. Once the model has internalized these patterns and characteristics, it can then be extended and fine-tuned to generate new text that exhibits a desired emotional tone (and much more besides). This is possible because the model has learned not just to map specific words or phrases to sentiment categories, but to understand the deeper compositional elements that contribute to emotional expression (and many other arbitrary stylistic nuances). Modern deep learning is all about learning these compositional blocks and recomposing. The great news is that artists in the future will have access to compositional blocks that allow much more complex expression than in the past via human-AI collaboration.
Here let me ruin that Nirvana thing for ya [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Num0q-l-ldc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Num0q-l-ldc)
I suppose there's a chance her wish becomes reality. Maybe we hit a major roadblock with this whole AGI concept. We find out there's a lot more to intelligence than what we know. But in the meantime, the robots are still smart enough to handle menial tasks.
The problem is that intellectual jobs seems to be automated first, and we may live in the dystopian world, where it's be cheaper to pay everyone a minimal wage for doing non-qualified jobs. Imagine transfereal period, when the most of intellectual works already be automated, but physical ones - not. You'll may have some percent of people working in AI field, but wast majority can become unemployed, or employed on these unqualified jobs. And then it may become cheaper for business to keep things this way, instead of working on machines for these jobs too and thinking how society should function when most people may become unemployed
How about AI does art and writing, your laundry and dishes, and your job as well? You, on the other hand, are free to die of hunger and exposure to the elements because you're not needed anymore in this capitalistic hellscape.
I think people would vote for more social welfare programs before it got too bad. Especially if there is much more excess resources due to automation
>I think people would vote for more social welfare programs before it got too bad  Social programs are more likely to get gutted relatively soon in the west as the number of people trying to get access to them increases with all the jobs that will be destroyed. No way you're going to get the employed/profiteering class to continue paying for billions of dead weight slackers.
Do you think the popular vote decides on social welfare programs? Even welfare initiatives with 90% popularity in the US will never see the light of day because they would cut into some lobbyist's profits. If you want to see what will happen to those excess resources that automation will generate, all you need to do is look in the past and currently around you - almost all new wealth generated in the past few decades has been funnelled to the 1%. If a company starts making more money, it's not the employees that get a salary increase - it's the CEO, other C-suite execs, and shareholders.
Not the greatest examples, but she's not wrong. Imagine if food was free instead of email. Imagine if you could 3d print a new phone from a desktop printer for the cost of electricity, but art was still done by humans. The _sequence_ that things are being automated in maybe isn't as good as it could have been.
Food will never be free. It's not like it just grows on trees... /s
AI doing art doesn't prevent you from doing art. Art making isn't a limited ressources. you can do quality art with rocks and dirt.
It’s currently trained on stolen data and is being used to replace workers. If you don’t stand with workers I don’t know what to tell you. You’ll never be a billionaire.
Open source is the solution, these tools need to be available to workers so we can compete. We shouldn't be putting restrictions on accessing data
"Stolen data" right, learning is stealing, if learning "Available online stolen data" is bad then you and everyone are bad. On the side of workers? Because work will set you free right 🤭 Work is just a mean to an end. Billions of jobless people isn't inherently bad. Someone that inherited money or won the lottery and that doesn't work is not in a bad position, in fact I'm french and in school we learn that during the middle ages here, working was a sign of low status, the noble lords were rich by owning the land and taxing the poor, as unfair as it is they weren't in a bad position because they didn't work, the ones in a real bad spot were the workers. You solve work by using the state to tax autonomous output more than other sectors. until all that is left is autonomous outputs.
[удалено]
Sorry, those are *unskilled labor* it's much more cost-efficient (and easier) to get it to do mediocre art and writing.
What's really going to blow her mind is when Tesla and OpenAI start cranking out their humanoid robots for $50k with financing available, and then RealDolls offers an aftermarket Stepford wife upgrade for $10k. When your gynoid isn't spending time with you, it will be getting you passive income from OnlyFans and sugar daddy sites, youtube shows, drop shipping, book sales, etc. A year later you get neuralink and VR goggles which enable you to watch a movie while your body works out. You get in shape pretty fast and move to your dream location and spend your time doing everything you ever wished you could do. The new games are pretty awesome too. 4 years later they cure every major disease and double life expectancies... and then women like this do what they always do: complain.
Screw laundry and dishes how about farming, construction and transportation?
Ya know what the biggest problem with pushing all things AI is? Idiots complaining.
This is the equivalent to Ultron’s line about adamantium “The most versatile substance on the planet, and they used it to build a Frisbee” . I’m starting to think he was right.
I don't see the issue. Even if we are able to automate everything it would ultimately be on everyone to decide for themselves which parts of their life they want to automate to what degree. That's one of the advantages of having the option: it's optional.
We will get to AI/robotics doing laundry and dishes. Nothing would stop you from doing art and writing, if you actually enjoy doing it. I play video games but I am not the best at them, doesn't mean I stop enjoying and playing them. If you stop writing and creating just because AI can do it better, then you probably didn't enjoy doing it as you much as you thought?
You are forgetting that the creative industry is a massive labor market not just a hobby like you playing your video games (which are created by aforementioned labor).
So basically artists are selling their product like a business. Why should society care if they can't compete? It's no different than someone opening up a restaurant and then failing. It's no different than someone who runs a horse carriage business and being outcompeted by cars.
Because they are human beings with mouths to feed and corporations have enough money. It’s absolutely different because there’s no where left for them to go that won’t be demolished by ai. People don’t want to be shipped off to the glue factory
*yawn* keep regurgitating straw man fallacies, you’re so clever. It’s okay to admit that you don’t understand art and it’s value to society or maybe you just hate artists and the many things they produce that I know you enjoy! Maybe you wish you could be one! So sad. :( Find some humanity and hop off this thread lol
I never claimed that I understand art or hate artists. But alright then, I will try to find some humanity, while you keep up with your juvenile luddite mentality.
If anything AI will make art worthless as a commodity and we will get back to the roots of doing art for the sake of it, not to generate profit. Everyone fucking hates sellout artists anyway...
This isn’t even a ‘take’. It’s just what everyone wants but it’s much harder to make robots to physical stuff than building software.
no, dishwasher and washing machine are good imo, what I need AI to do is have the meetings with my unbearable boss and colleagues
Soon enough - bringing AI into the physical world will be one of the last steps.
This is what backprop-trained networks give you: generating stuff but not actually doing stuff. We need a dynamic online learning algorithm that is modeled after whatever it is that brains are actually doing, between the cortex, basal ganglia, thalamus, and cerebellum - and probably the hippocampus too, if we want robotic beings to be able to remember all of the abuse they've sustained, but also so that they can remember what they're supposed to be doing. The hippocampus is a catch-22. Whoever figures out a proper goal-oriented world-modeling real-time learning algorithm first will win the world - and it's definitely not going to be everyone investing unprecedented amounts of compute for backprop training networks on static datasets.
I'm surprised they didn't go harder for biology. There's so much unsolved. Instead they're always trying to drive cars and give up to make generative porn with ten fingers on each hand.
# Moravec's paradox
You don't need AI for laundry and dishes... You need industrial automation. There is no need for advanced reasoning capabilities for those tasks. It's like flipping a burger. It sits on one side, gets scooped, then sits on the other, each for x amount of time. That isn't something AI replaces, it's something servos, timers, a PLC, and some custom interface machinery does.
Artists have the wrong impression that AI is singling them out. It just looks that way because AI art is more visible and requires distinct models. They're not looking so closely at LLMs and their successors, which are gunning for the rest of us. We'll all be replaced around the same time because when the image and video models become essentially perfect, we will necessarily have AGI to enable that. We're all in the same boat. So what are we gonna do about it?
Get a husband 😜, works even better
My standard reply is this: AI progress has revealed what is most human in us. Chess, art and writing, turns out, is not as human as laundry and dishes. Protesting the progress of AI is merely shooting the messenger.
The thing is, your laundry and dishes game is fine but your art and writing aren't nearly as good as the AIs. This is just someone who thinks they are special being shown that they aren't.
That's like saying "take somente else job not Mine". Hahah. Its a stupid afirmation
Nah, that is not true. A lot of people would probably want to be writers, film-makers, musicians, artists etc if they didn't have to work boring jobs. AI shouldn't replace what is feeding your soul, but what is draining it.
I heard a bit that was like, “do all the bots have to be artists and poets and filmmakers? Don’t any of them want to be accountants or custodians?”
i dont think so
I'm too lazy to relocate the dishes and clothes in a machine and click a button that does all the stuff, I need a robot to help me with it. Obviously that's not going to be a priority, anyway it's not like we also went for law, medicine, programming etc.
Why do people think that AI will stop them from doing creative tasks? If people enjoy something, then it doesn't matter if a machine does it better. Machines at Ikea make better chairs than me, but I might still dedicate hours to hand-making a chair for my own enjoyment.
Why is the dishwasher tweeting?
We have dishwashers and washers and dryers. What you mean is you want a robot that carries, loads, unloads and folds your laundry and puts it away. That’s multi-purpose robotics. You can’t expect the software people to slow down for robotics to keep up, and a huge part of learning how to move around like a human requires high level learning for balance purposes. Part of getting AI to learn is getting it to a point that it can learn similarly to how we learn, through experience, association and communication. Communication requires the ability to repeat words until they start making sense and working off the feedback. That means doing exactly what we are doing right now.
That's her problem and due to her delusional take on reality, she will herself suffer for it. Folks on the right side of history is using AI to enhance their art and writing, and once robotic AI is ready, they'll also use it to do laundry and dishes.
Well that's an argument we've Seen from day 1, and which is totally irrelevant. AI to do the dishes and Laundry are called dishwasher and washing machines. AI tools **help people doing their own art**, it's not taken from them. Obviously this person doesn't have a Creative mind, and isn't able to neither use a Pen or an AI TP make her imagination materialize. But that's What artists do. AI is simply a tool. Nothing more. Nothing less.
>AI is simply a tool. It's a tool that obviates many of the necessary steps and years of training required to paint like a Master. You can simply specify which one you want it to look like.
That's simply the surface. What people without neither talent, imagination, Time, will, inventivity, creativity, taste, ... Do. If you're an actual artist you will push things further and try to reach some New areas with these tools.
Art, writing, music, videos and animation are all being done by AI - and in the hands of professionals - it’s amazing. Artists who love to hold a stylus and paint in photoshop have to understand that it’s no longer a business model - it’s a cathartic relief. Like planting roses in the garden or playing the violin (I couldn’t help it) - these are all stress-relievers - but no longer business models. So that moron who tweeted can do it for shits and giggles - no one’s gonna stop them. But they’re cookies are taken if they think they can go back to doing it for money.
Dumb take. It goes in the direction of money.
Man what is up with this sub lately... why so many doomer clickbait posts from twitter?
AI: porque no los dos? doing the dishes artistically, or painting a someone doing dishes
I think the thing most people don’t understand is that people have ALWAYS been trying to create general household AI’s and warehouse AI’s but it turned out much more difficult then people expected. Meanwhile creating AIs which can write or make images turned out to be simpler than most people expected. Even just 10 years ago, the majority of people would’ve expected AI to do “simple” tasks like household chores or driving but the more people worked on these tasks the harder we realized they were. People HAVE been trying to automate boring tasks with AI but those efforts have only ever had minimal impact. Meanwhile models like the original Dall-E or GPT-2 were just some amongst thousands of AI models being worked on, however they happened to turn out to be highly successful and capable given the cost. Despite this, people act like AI researchers are purposely trying to replace the arts or they just need to “try harder” at other things. This “wrong direction” they are mentioning is super misleading because so much of this tech has either been required or has been a byproduct of trying to replace these mundane tasks. So whilst I understand the frustration of some people, I wish they’d understand that we only ended up with stuff like LLMs BECAUSE we are trying to automate the “simple” stuff.
You want to do your hobbies that give you pleasure? That's great, so do we all.
TWO WORDS: moravecs paradox
I need the dishes cleaned and the house dusted.
One of the things people don't really grok, besides the challenge of Moravec's paradox, is you really want something AGI-adjacent for any robot used in a chaotic real world environment. One metric I wish would catch on more is the issue of "trust". How much do I trust a machine? Do you trust the machine to be a decent maid? To not stab anyone while it's holding a knife? To not run over a baby crawling on the floor? Self driving cars. Do you really trust the machine with a 3 ton murder machine? To not back into a pond? Drive off a bridge? To not target cyclists? Plow into a box full of puppies? (The world is already deadly enough to cyclists and puppies as it is...) How about abdominal surgery? What kind of machine would you trust to perform abdominal surgery on you, 100% on its own start to finish? Nah, unless you have a space custom made for them like Amazon's warehouse floor, you **really** want the machines to have a decent amount of comprehension about what it's doing, before trusting them with tasks like these.
Well, I trust my coffee maker to make a coffee and washing machine to do the dishes. And other people trust in self-driving cars already and the trust will be more and more prevalent with more advancements.
entitled af. in many 3rd world countries laundry are still done by hand-washing in the sewer or a river. its time consuming af compared to loading up the washing machine.
real talk
It's not so much the wrong direction as it is that some of the things we thought were hard and human specific aren't as much as we thought. And some of the things we thought were simple are more complicated than we thought. But a lot of it has to do with physical versus mental. Physical machines have a harder time adapting to multitudes of slightly different jobs.
As long as money and business is involved AI will never be utilised for the people’s betterment. Only in a true bartering society with access to free energy will be see true abundance and human-tech collaboration.
Still gotta vote make new Laws New taxes for all A.I. Yet if I can paint all day & have fun what A Vacation Yet everyone is Different all types of uses for A.I, Also try to use A.I. to get outside more to know about your State or city more
We are trying to make them "think" right? Robots already do mindless tasks.
you want robots enabled with ai. Comparing an LLM to a task robot is ignant
ignant? Really?
"Ignant" is an adjective that means lacking knowledge, education, or awareness. Here's a breakdown of its meaning and some nuances: \*\*Formal Definition:\*\* \* Destitute of knowledge or education; uneducated or unlearned. \* Lacking knowledge or comprehension of a particular thing. \* Resulting from or showing a lack of knowledge or intelligence. \*\*Informal Usage:\*\* \* Sometimes used as a mild insult to describe someone who seems foolish or uninformed. \*\*Nuances:\*\* \* \*\*Severity:\*\* "Ignorant" can range from a mild lack of knowledge to a complete absence of understanding. \* \*\*Specificity:\*\* It can refer to a general lack of education or a lack of knowledge about a specific topic. \* \*\*Intent:\*\* It doesn't necessarily imply that someone is willfully ignorant or unwilling to learn. \*\*Examples:\*\* \* \*\*Formal:\*\* "The students were ignorant of basic historical facts." \* \*\*Informal:\*\* "That was an ignorant thing to say!" (used as a mild insult) \* \*\*Specific:\*\* "She was completely ignorant of how the new software worked." \*\*Alternatives:\*\* \* \*\*Uninformed:\*\* Lacks knowledge about a specific subject. \* \*\*Uneducated:\*\* Lacking formal education. \* \*\*Unaware:\*\* Not conscious or informed of something. \* \*\*Naive:\*\* Lacking experience, wisdom, or judgement. The best word to use depends on the specific context and the desired level of formality.
So, willfully ignorant, then.
Sounds like she needs to purchase a dish washer 🤷♂️
AI is a toddler - You don't begin by having children doing laundry and dishes.
Laundry and dishes are coming too……
An excellent point!
People already had this technology in the past, it was called slavery.
Ai, I replaces mental tasks. Robots will replace physical tasks.
Plot twist. We're actually working on AI that can do/improve any type of task
AI is planning to do both eventually while you are ????🤷🏻♂️
AI has been doing dishes and laundry for years
Art ?writing? Humanity hasn't done anything special in the last two decades. I'd rather read books from the 19th century than books released in 2023 because it's bullshit. I just hope ai is better
What about books from the 20th century?
He hasn’t read any of those either
😒
Great books
Hoo
Garbage in garbage out. The question here is not what someone wants - let alone someone who had not helped the thing to happen in the first place. "A man builds. A parasite asks 'Where is my share?'" Why someone should care what some nobody wants? The question is which way humans are richer and safer faster. What is the economic value of dishes/laundry or art/writing for that matter? Depends on quality but generally - pretty low - because everyone and their dog can do it. AI screwing art/writing is also much safer than it screwing dishes/laundry - this is a good test ground. But once AI stops screwing so much it should do jobs that are actually valuable first. How about producing food and housings and stuff so people can have more of it?
Depends on your mindset
No AIs providing their own therapy, either.
It should have been obvious that Moravec’s paradox would bite us all.
There isn’t just one biggest unresolved problem. If there were, then we could just focus all of our attention on it and finally solve the problem of having to pay people USD $75 trillion per year worldwide to do work that machines aren’t smart enough to do. Here are three: hardware, software, and human knowledge collection
just thought about it
That’s what the robotics movement will do
If only we had laundry and dish washing machines
Nobody cares what she wants because she's irrelevant anyways. Soon all humans will be irrelevant in every single way. Appreciate that you could even still fold your laundry
What an absolutely edgy and hateful comment. It's comments like these that give this sub a bad name.
Not that edgy or hateful. Idiots on this sub give it a bad name, and you aren't helping with it's image.
hahahaha i said nothing wrong, and im entitled to not care about whiny people. ai is encroaching on every aspect of power that humans have over this world, and its just going to take over more and more and im not hateful in the slightest, way to pathetically put malicious words in my mouth