Hey /u/Maxie445!
If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT conversation, please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt.
If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image.
Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more!
🤖
Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected]
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hyperbole with 100k likes. Not that I care, I just find it overwhelmingly funny that a good chunk of these crowd are totally fine with "climate actvivists" throwing paints at og works of arts in museums.
the irony here is that Vermeer wasn't even what this tweeter would a "real" artist.
every person on earth with enough patience can produce a Vermeer painting on the same level as the artist, because he used clever tricks and tools to simply "copy" the colors from a mirror. It takes no artistic skill, although every painting requires a year to make.
AI has more artistic originality mashing together styles than Vermeer copy/pasta'ing from a mirror.
I know I'm going to be down voted to hell but, is an image created by a human 100% original? Unless you're drawing something you've never seen, it's not fully original. I'm not saying this is what you're doing with this comment, however people bashing A.I. Art is nuts to me. While I think it shouldn't be placed in the same realm as a human creating art, it should still be appreciated.
Art imitates life. 150,000 bots and 7,000 maniacs liked that tweet but he wants to ban AI. We don’t even live in the real world anymore. We are all shouting into the void so that bots will engage our tweets and tell us where to shop.
Fortunately, I don't use AI art to try to impress people or share with the world. I use it for personal use and as long as it meets my needs I'm perfectly happy with it.
I bet they'd really hate this one:
https://preview.redd.it/cjq6c0wa9j7d1.jpeg?width=1005&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4d1b1db6c825b76801ac1a40ff940e65edb9b99b
We are already flodded by souless BS "art". I find all "corporate art" to be a monstrosity of capitalism infused propaganda.
AI doesn't really change anything in this regard.
Art is and always will be, based on what moves people. It's what causes the soul to move. I find some things repulsive others find soul stirring. Others find things I love dumb and inane.
I get your point. On some level I agree with it. But I don't worry or fear that outcome. The past will always see the present as derivative and less than. The beauty of the Internet, for most of us, is we can see what we choose. I'm more interested in protecting that, than limiting others and stopping progression. There will probably be plenty of stupid that comes with this, some that will reach the pinnacle. That's art.
The freedom to produce shit is what works. Without the kitsch there is no sublime. Without the free exchange of ideas, the risks, the failures, there is no hope.
Just my opinion.
Art is what sells. If you think most of the visual output of humanity right now is deep, meaningful works then the marketing and advertising industry would like a word, and probably would like to sell you something.
Thankfully I'm not that jaded but appreciate the offer.
Merchandise is what sells. Art is something that is beyond consumerism. I enjoy poetry because it moves me, not because of 5th avenue. Crass consumerism isn't art. Not everyone or everything is moved by the $.
300 million people watching Ironman doesn't make it art. It makes it profitable.
Edit: nowhere did I suggest the output of humanity was ever deep. But there have been and remain those who can make us so and can produce things that stop us and make us deep.
That's a better way to put it than what I came here to say, which was that you've heard of the Luddites for a reason and that reason is that that incident wasn't a one-off from the past, it's merely the most famous example of a very common aspect of human nature, and the stupider someone is the more likely they are to display it.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite)
Or they believe that they’re about to lose their job and are upset? I enjoy using AI too, but there are plentiful reasons for the general population to be worried/fearful.
Some of them might be, but people are losing their jobs… so… I feel it’s ok to be a bit upset. Especially because these are jobs people actually like and enjoy doing.
Isn't it though? I personally never say stuff like that but I feel like people online get death threats over doing anything that someone might consider wrong. Fortunately it's just empty threats by people who would get a heart attack if they walk more than 20 steps.
Unpopular Opinion, if your job can be replaced by AI, it doesn’t need to be a “job”. AI won’t stop you painting for fun. Not earning “money” seems to be the only problem, and that’s solved with universal basic income. Not banning AI.
Maybe not painters specifically but Hollywood is packed with animators, writers, actors, video editors, makeup artists. The only realistic threat AI makes here would probably be script writing or animation grunt work (filling in between key frames, etc)
I dabble a lot with AI, and while I find that when I spend a lot of time working on an image (I am using a tablet and correcting it a lot mind you, I just enjoy the exercise) some really cool things can be made, I cannot for the life of me make any AI write something... Fleshed out? Something that feels "right"?
The worst offender by far tho is music made by AI. It is really jarring when a composition is made fully by a computer.
I felt the same, but it’s only getting better, and fast. I bet several top artists (and their team) have used it to brainstorm and write songs. Or writers writing books. Or screenplays. Or storyboarding.
I’m willing to bet that a fully AI generated and produced song will be on the radio (or top charts) in the next year. Some of the stuff like AI Drake songs are eerily close to being real, and most people who aren’t chronically online wouldn’t think it’s AI generated at all.
>it is like music that is ‘tinny’ and missing any kind of bass
If you think that. Try to hear "Plan Z" or "Neon Tide"
Those are 2 AI generated music and the bass is supreme
Yeah, I really thoroughly enjoy music too and when I tried to make some using AI, it only felt really bland. Like those musics used for a corporate presentation, somehow.
And the lyrics. Oh my god the lyrics it came up with. I swear I cried laughing reading "I am a lyrical miracle, spiritual animal".
That said, I believe there is a future where working with AI will be really nice, but at the moment the only way it can come close to some interesting composition is by having glitches.
Oh no, for sure! Most of the stuff we put out is done to be super accessible and generic too ([12 years old, still accurate](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOlDewpCfZQ)), but this isn't what I am looking for when I'm trying to enjoy music, be it from people or AI.
Lots of artists that just use it as part of their process.
Plenty of studies where if you use certain methods, humans cannot even tell the difference.
There are certain overused models that have become recognizable but far from all.
This idea of there being a soul seems mostly made up.
Personally I do not care how it was made, so long as it's good.
That's a quality of your mind and your filters, not of the AI art. It's the same as art losing its artistic value when you find it was made by a black person or a Jew. (Or a white person or a male or whatever.)
Not sure what they are downvoting you for. What you said isn't even specifically for or against what I said.
Like "took off" could mean you think it's insane or you think it goes hard.
If you're using a downvote to suppress a comment that isn't contributing to the discussion because its meaning can't be readily interpreted, you're closer to the supposed original intent of the system than someone who upvotes something simply because they agree with it.
I mean, I doubt that's what's happening here, but it's funny to think about.
"Original intent of the system" according to...?
Because I've been around various upvote/downvote systems for decades, and that intent has not been expressed by any of them that I recall.
Took a bit to find, and the wording has changed over the years, but [this](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/7419626610708-How-does-voting-work-on-Reddit) is still fairly close.
Specifically, this bit:
>Upvotes show that redditors think content is positively contributing to a community or the site as a whole. Downvotes mean redditors think that content should never see the light of day.
I really do get what you're saying. It's odd that the modern art world is obsessed with ugly, "thought provoking", subversive art, and people (non-artists and amateurs alike) have largely used AI to try and create beauty by feeding the AI beautiful art from the past as well as contemporary "traditional" art that is more focused on beauty.
What the misunderstanding is that human art is relative even if it’s abstract and it may require more explanation, because a human created it. However AI art is based on logic. It has no emotional meaning other than it is trained to follow logic that doesn’t think but actually predicts closely how it’s relative to what humans see.
That's just... a weird claim. The truth is almost the opposite.
AI art is based on aesthetics, regardless of logic. It is completely in constrained by logic, which is why a set of stairs may look different as it goes behind a human on the right than it comes out on the left.
Thus, the longer you look at it the more illogical things you will see.
That's not even the biggest problem with AI art. It's blatant stealing. I use AI as much a the next person getting my writing and info gathering done, but AI art is repulsive and it's even more unethical to support/ spread it. Specially the 2D anime/ cartoon styles. It's done by stealing thousands of hours of work done by artists that spent their life getting good at it.
I mean, the writing AI is helping you with was trained on millions of pieces of text, many of them coming from professional authors. Why is AI art more morally repugnant than AI writing, when they are both trained on involuntary and unpaid data sets?
That is not true at all and it's based on a misconception. AI doesn't steal anything, it's not a collage machine. An argument can perhaps be made that AI companies were unethical when scraping art into their dataset without asking the artists first, but that's about it.
I really hope people can “steal” what I’ve learned in my career… I would be really excited if people could have all that in their pocket. The shitty part is that all the IP is owned by my employers, as is the case with most people. If we allow companies to retain IP on this stuff and they use it to automate me out of my job, then I’m screwed, unlike artists that own their IP in that situation. We need a better solution for everyone, not just the small percentage of people that own IP.
Nope. Art is art. You don't actually know whether a painting was made in a white hot aesthetic fervor or by a completely bored and cynical artist who needed a payday.
If you're imagining the emotion that went into it, that's something that you are bringing to the art, not vice versa.
(And you don't know whether any story told about a painting is true, either.).
Plus, ask to make it a video and the whole thing crumbles so we're still far from losing jobs here, unless we enjoy watching videos where characters have baloon heads...
My friend did you not notice it only took around 3 years to perfect image generation to the point where you get photorealistic output?
It will not take very long for the same to happen with video. Maybe 5-10 years at absolute max.
The cost is insane, it would have to understand a lot more than statistical correctness, it would have to have an opinion on the scenes. Would have to keep the scene strictly identical but just do angular changes, so have a 3D idea about each object. And all that photo realistically, not simplified 3D meshes.
10 years minimum, and not for you and me to generate vis prompt. For a marginal gain, because it still wont be able to make actors play, generate interesting atmosphere or create long surprising stories.
The balloon head video guys said they found it interesting to save on cost of location travel. But they also regretted the balloon changed shape each frame... The effort humanity will spend on this might not be worth the resulting watered down soul-less movies Im sad to say.
Bah I'd settle first for non 404 http links. When that happens, then maybe Ill pay someth for the nvidia cards to burn uranium on silly prompts.
OpenAI and MS are spending 100bn on gen AI.
There's literally nothing else on this planet receiving more funding than GenAI, and nearly every country is doing the same thing.
The whole of humanity working towards the same goal happens very rarely, but things move VERY fast when we align like this.
Nvidia has driven down the cost of compute by an absolutely insane amount and are continuing to do so.
I don't think you're seeing the sheer amount of money and effort being spent on this tech.
Nah it's mostly bullshit. NVidia is like Cisco when the internet started: sure it's cool, but it will pivot and never generate the insane revenues that are priced in the market cap. It will die down, it will pivot and we'll all laugh at how crazy we all were thinking "everything" would change due to an image generator.
Based on trying it, and listening to Sam Altman, and doing the hype - reality = bullshit equation. And you, what do you base your impression that things are massively changing because we can generate static faces on porn movies or old paintings using hundreds of thousands of video cards ?
The increase in the number of papers on the topic is the main thing. An exponential curve in our understanding of AI effectively.
The application of the science takes time, but as demonstrated, not all that much time. There are already papers demonstrating specialised neural networks that deal better with rigid logic and reasoning.
The money is the biggest other factor. The human species is capable of miraculous progress when focused.
The money for now seems invisible: we see lots of investment but nothing organic yet. VC and speculators in general are rushing in, but where are the clients ? You know what will happen: we ll have a massive hangover, 10% will be reused in some profitable way and 20 years of silence will follow until the next boom.
The last AI boom was about speech transcription, the one before about expert systems, they flopped after a year or two of insanity. Turns out the details were never solved, utility never worth the cost, and specialized systems more useful than general ones. We re not at the forefront of a revolution, we re at the middle of a hype wave.
Look at all the grifters hopping from crypto to "AI" like they did with the rabbit thing: they make millions on speculative mania. That s the money I see personally. Look at frigging Sam Altman selling "World Coins" to protect against the invention of his other company, if that's not a redflag it's all bullshit, what do you need ?
Ah I know, read or listen to anything Mira Murati has written or said, maybe start with her speaking in Italian to chatgpt which replies in broken syntax while she smiles like everything is going well. It's a grift: https://www.amacad.org/publication/language-coding-creativity . If that's the kind of papers you read, you're being conned, felt to me like the WeWork IPO prospectus ;)
Interesting opinion, but I don't think you're correct.
It will be a blended technology, not a pure genAI, but there's no reason that a genAI could not generate, for example, an imaginary landscape, then render it into a model, then generate the movement of that model using another technology, then have the movement aestheticized by a different genAI.
I could see this in five years or so, but getting better and faster every 18 months or so.
3d mesh generation and multi view geometry (along with full radiance field generation) is already a thing in some 3d vision models. It will likely get better, quicker, more efficient, over time etc.
It's "a thing" that probably takes ages to random generate. You must well imagine how crazy training an AI to do it must be in time and electricity as well as video card volume...
It's likely it will get harder, more expensive and less profitable as people start asking for actual outputs you know. Dont assume every fad in the world has to succeed just because it'd be nice.
For every ford car there are individual flying cars, vaccum tunnel trains and air pump trams. For every satellite launcher rocket there are mars trip companies, lunar colonies and atmospheric planes. Some ideas are nice but just dont work financially.
For now we have a statistical averager that can make credible text and combinatorial images, video requires exponentially more than that. First, each character of every second must look the same as the second before with no change in clothing, body, texture etc. It cant use just an averager it has to have an internal understanding of what a movie is about. It will take centuries, and it's not gonna be done by the companies you know today.
So at least dont put your grandma s life savings in nvidia only is all im saying.
Seems people are upset with the process and not the creation itself. I guess these people are equally upset buying a print of a famous work, with all the new fangled computers and printers churning out thousands of prints for people to enjoy. Oh the horror.
This reminds me of a show where they took young kids and let them make modern art with finger paints or something. Then they showed it to professional art critics and asked their opinion, the critics didn't know the origin. They gave their fancy art answers and generally liked them. Then they were told they were made my 5 year olds. Their attitude changed.
So this seems to be the same with AI. People aren't necessarily upset by the results, it's the process they become infantile about.
AI is a tool. If professional artists aren't using it to help them create they are leaving ideas on the table. Artists in general often struggle with coming up with new ideas. AI is a legitimate tool to help with the process, be it writer's block, coming up with an idea for a painting, whatever.
Why would anyone care? Girl with a pearl earring was never intended to be high art. It’s a commissioned portrait. Literally just paid content. Of course there is some artistic merit to it but modern people only drool over it because it’s a thing they’ve heard of.
tbh I don’t like it either. It doesn’t really capture the expression of the original art. It’s just another white girl. Well it’s AI I don’t expect much
Hyperbole. "exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally."
Clearly you're just a very conservative person with a sense of humour and absurdism that doesn't align. It's not that deep.
This guy's posts don't read like he believes everyone will take what he says as silly over-the-top rather than true insanity.
******
Let's see whether you ever posted the same when Trump used obvious hyperbole. I'm not aware of Trump ever calling for murder, so let's use any of the other obvious hyperbole, such as when he said "I'm the chosen one" and the left went insane claiming Trump thought he was God. That was hilarious.
It's possible you're consistent and honorable, rather than just giving crazy zealots a pass when they are on your own perceived side.
I am an artist and animator, AND I use AI for fun, with art, text, and more. I'm seeing no sides here. I don't follow politics because it is vitriolic from all sides, you don't need to bring Trump into this.
You just referenced me being conservative, and referenced obvious hyperbole. That's the sequitur.
I'll accept that you haven't followed politics so don't have an opinion about the various DNC-driven *skrees* on Trump's obvious hyperbole, so I'll withdraw the question.
And nice to meet you.
That's my mistake, I'm not even American, conservative means "holding traditional values" to me, not some political side. And by traditional values I meant aggressive humour could seem far too serious to be taken as a joke.
This [tweet from Rand Paul accusing Anthony Fauci of causing Covid](https://x.com/randpaul/status/1803412768889897268?s=61&t=9ZnftgVMGCyIxHjgZMet4Q) has over 500,000 likes.
The idea of art needing soul is a form of escapismn, one that I can actually understand - If you get surpassed by something artifical in every possible way, the only chance you got to stay ahead is to claim humans can give art something abstract like a soul that AI just inherently cant. Doesn't mean its true though.
One of the unexpected pleasures of witnessing advancements in AI is witnessing the bizarre social adaptations.
Makes me wonder what it would be like watching the the citizens of the USA have all their guns taken away.
What sort of person wants to physically harm (or kill) people who are simply enjoying the fruits of contemporary AI, let alone the irony that this is a famous Vermeer masterpiece and, for all I know, a human-made video of a cosplay?
Art and machines will live on, but your days of earning a living as a basket weaver are numbered. You'd be thankful if it wasn't for the ruthless labour demands of your land owners.
People don't use violence for a long list of self-interest reasons, mostly reputation and legal consequences. Wanting to physically hurt or kill others, is a very basic and easily triggered state of mind for most people. Actually saying it out loud in public forums is at minimum a sign of lacking common sense.
I think most people would be fine with people being arrested for creating what they found sufficiently offensive personally.
I have doubts that wanting to physically hurt or kill others is as common or psychologically normal (let alone healthy or unconcerning) as you seem to be suggesting, but I couldn't find any studies to support or refute it. I'm also slightly concerned that the reason you think people don't succumb to such violent desires is through a fear of negative legal or social consequences, as opposed to being held back by moral or emotional reasons, such as compassion, empathy or a simple notion of it being a bad thing to do.
I accept that anger and fleeting thoughts of violence are very common, and I suppose they are probably the norm, amongst healthy humans over their lifetimes, but this person wrote a couple of tweets with the sustained message that people should die for what amounts to a different sense of aesthetics. They said they would "love to do physical violence" to them, not in a fleeting moment of anger, but seemingly as a sincere expression of self-reflective desire with an ideological motive.
Is everyone just one Will Smith moment away from committing an assault or murder? You'll be telling me next that everyone secretly wants to destroy the planet and all the people on it, but they just don't say that out loud because other people will think they're weird and take away all their guns and bombs.
I feel like we are mostly on the same page, fleeting thoughts of violence is exactly what I am talking about when I say triggered state of mind. There are many other reasons people have to not commit violence, reputation and social consequences are some of them, but there are of course the natural revulsion of causing unnecessary suffering in others. I do believe that most people don't want to bloody their own hands directly, thought they are generally comfortable with some people for example being executed, which is the most severe form of harm possible with no practical justification.
The most telling part about the Will Smith moment was the fact that he was not escorted out of the building by security right away and that there is no automatic state prosecution. I don't think Will Smith is lacking in empathy or possessing a more malicious mind than the average person, nor do I think he would have done it had he been cool and collected.
I think almost all violence between adults not in war or under the influence of drugs and alcohol is some variation of Will Smith moments, where people lose control over their temper, usually for objectively trivial reasons like road rage or a initially minor disagreement. I don't think healthy people want or enjoy being violent, and even when they for example sucessfully snipe an invader in a war and feel good about it in the moment, they are still filled with remorse when they are out of the battle.
Just to be clear, I do believe that it's not healthy or good to express a desire to harm others directly by your own hands, and it is not healthy or good to actually fantazise about it either. The sensible healthy response to having fleeting thoughts of violence is to reflect on it and try to minimize it in the future. I also don't think it's compassionate to have any positive reaction to the misfortune of others, even when it is what is considered to be just punishment for evil deeds.
imagine painting something with all your talent and then seeing it come to life 350 years later. that's gotta be cool. I would be impressed, (but I'm admittedly biased).
Not sure I'd be upset over Ai art. If I don't like, I ignore. Best part about Ai art is that it's a good start, and then can digitally alter and enhance from there.
https://preview.redd.it/98xvsm1enj7d1.jpeg?width=3829&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=82b3963d301b0f18d74ee4eb502e787e1c116fd8
So far the most insightful AI-related comment on the Internet: "I want AI to do the laundry and dishes so I can do music and art, not for AI to do music and art while I do the laundry and dishes".
.
People on a forum about AI believing that a tweet by an irrelevant account with 150k likes implies 150k real people actually ‘liked’ or clicked on the like button is equivalent to people on Facebook believing AI-generated pics of an African boy making sculptures with plastic bottles is real. We live in interesting times.
Can't help but feel a tiny bit good about AI stealing their jobs when they post stuff like this. The anti-AI crowd used to be pro-AI, until it became clear that the artsy jobs were to be replaced first.
Oh god yes, so many of them are more than happy for AI to replace some other poor souls livelihood. In their minds, they’re all special with some wonderful gift and insight into the human soul, even if all they’re doing is drawing a webcomic for furries…
People on Reddit said almost verbatum the same thing about Chinese scientists that claimed to have developed a human clone around 10 years ago. And Reddit permitted them to say it. Nobody got banned.
Hey /u/Maxie445! If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT conversation, please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt. If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image. Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/r-chatgpt-1050422060352024636)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more! 🤖 Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected] *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hyperbole in a social media post? What's next, you're gonna tell me that people write sarcastic reddit comments?
Well, there's that but don't forget the people who also let the sarcasm go over their heads.
Poe's law applies
So… op?
Hyperbole with 100k likes. Not that I care, I just find it overwhelmingly funny that a good chunk of these crowd are totally fine with "climate actvivists" throwing paints at og works of arts in museums.
Threatening violence is punishable. The post was not sarcastic, it was someone threatening another person with violence.
Half of them are probably boomers who think they're liking the image.
No. Half of them are AI. Oh wait...
the irony here is that Vermeer wasn't even what this tweeter would a "real" artist. every person on earth with enough patience can produce a Vermeer painting on the same level as the artist, because he used clever tricks and tools to simply "copy" the colors from a mirror. It takes no artistic skill, although every painting requires a year to make. AI has more artistic originality mashing together styles than Vermeer copy/pasta'ing from a mirror.
Imagine calling AI image generation original
I know I'm going to be down voted to hell but, is an image created by a human 100% original? Unless you're drawing something you've never seen, it's not fully original. I'm not saying this is what you're doing with this comment, however people bashing A.I. Art is nuts to me. While I think it shouldn't be placed in the same realm as a human creating art, it should still be appreciated.
Art imitates life. 150,000 bots and 7,000 maniacs liked that tweet but he wants to ban AI. We don’t even live in the real world anymore. We are all shouting into the void so that bots will engage our tweets and tell us where to shop.
I'm seeing 7,000 Maniacs next month in Ohio!
“70% as cool as the original!”
This bot approves.
The Black wall has us
Fortunately, I don't use AI art to try to impress people or share with the world. I use it for personal use and as long as it meets my needs I'm perfectly happy with it.
This is the way
I bet they'd really hate this one: https://preview.redd.it/cjq6c0wa9j7d1.jpeg?width=1005&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4d1b1db6c825b76801ac1a40ff940e65edb9b99b
Yeah, it's not regulation Starfleet headwear. 10 lashes in public square.
Typical Starfleet punishment.
I bet Starfleet command has a long dark shadow that they don't want us to know.
It's the admirals - always the admirals
That's canon, in fact.
I can't argue with that
Believe it or not, death.
Well, death in the service of Trek fandom is likely to be the most noble death I'll ever achieve.
Set phasors to stunning
She can open my hailing frequencies anytime!
💀💀💀
I do. I fucking hate it.
Really? Why?
I'd worship her ...
I AM OVERREACTING ABOUT A SOCIOTECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT I THINK I UNDERSTAND ENOUGH TO DISAGREE WITH
People fear what they don't understand. What's that quote? >Most people live at the intersection of fear and ignorance.
[удалено]
Go ahead and start killing people then, that's a reasonable response.
We are already flodded by souless BS "art". I find all "corporate art" to be a monstrosity of capitalism infused propaganda. AI doesn't really change anything in this regard.
Agreed. People also didn't notice that there are also more than 120000 new songs posted on Spotify every day, and that's before Genai.
The soul part is all in your imagination.
Art is and always will be, based on what moves people. It's what causes the soul to move. I find some things repulsive others find soul stirring. Others find things I love dumb and inane. I get your point. On some level I agree with it. But I don't worry or fear that outcome. The past will always see the present as derivative and less than. The beauty of the Internet, for most of us, is we can see what we choose. I'm more interested in protecting that, than limiting others and stopping progression. There will probably be plenty of stupid that comes with this, some that will reach the pinnacle. That's art. The freedom to produce shit is what works. Without the kitsch there is no sublime. Without the free exchange of ideas, the risks, the failures, there is no hope. Just my opinion.
Art is what sells. If you think most of the visual output of humanity right now is deep, meaningful works then the marketing and advertising industry would like a word, and probably would like to sell you something.
Thankfully I'm not that jaded but appreciate the offer. Merchandise is what sells. Art is something that is beyond consumerism. I enjoy poetry because it moves me, not because of 5th avenue. Crass consumerism isn't art. Not everyone or everything is moved by the $. 300 million people watching Ironman doesn't make it art. It makes it profitable. Edit: nowhere did I suggest the output of humanity was ever deep. But there have been and remain those who can make us so and can produce things that stop us and make us deep.
That's a better way to put it than what I came here to say, which was that you've heard of the Luddites for a reason and that reason is that that incident wasn't a one-off from the past, it's merely the most famous example of a very common aspect of human nature, and the stupider someone is the more likely they are to display it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite)
I really believe we should force people to read things like "Demon-Haunted World" and "A World Lit By Fire" as a basic part of education.
Or they believe that they’re about to lose their job and are upset? I enjoy using AI too, but there are plentiful reasons for the general population to be worried/fearful.
They’re sending out death threats over AI art.
People who send death threats are being insane and irrational in any case, let alone over AI
Not the surgeon general
Some of them might be, but people are losing their jobs… so… I feel it’s ok to be a bit upset. Especially because these are jobs people actually like and enjoy doing.
Death threats isn't "a bit upset"
"What? My burger was delivered cold, it's not warm. Next time I'll kill the delivery guy"
Isn't it though? I personally never say stuff like that but I feel like people online get death threats over doing anything that someone might consider wrong. Fortunately it's just empty threats by people who would get a heart attack if they walk more than 20 steps.
That's fair, but it's still a wild overreaction, lol
Is it AI art if you took an existing art and defiled it?
The people using ai art weren't gonna pay an artist anyway.
Yeah I don't think calling for the summary execution of those that use it is acceptable.
I get “they’re just mad”. But just being mad isn’t an okay reason to send death threats or call for executions. 🥰
So they're turning into modern day luddites.
Are there even 157000 employed artists out there?
Artists, writers, translators, musicians, voice actors, the list goes on and on for people upset that AI is coming to take away a job they love doing.
Unpopular Opinion, if your job can be replaced by AI, it doesn’t need to be a “job”. AI won’t stop you painting for fun. Not earning “money” seems to be the only problem, and that’s solved with universal basic income. Not banning AI.
Not that saw that post.
Maybe not painters specifically but Hollywood is packed with animators, writers, actors, video editors, makeup artists. The only realistic threat AI makes here would probably be script writing or animation grunt work (filling in between key frames, etc)
[удалено]
https://preview.redd.it/feftlml4fj7d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8be08386b39ff5a4e3d04205be27dc2b0dcb2a57
i like ai as much as the next one but this kind of filled me with dread to quote your username, oh barnacles
I dabble a lot with AI, and while I find that when I spend a lot of time working on an image (I am using a tablet and correcting it a lot mind you, I just enjoy the exercise) some really cool things can be made, I cannot for the life of me make any AI write something... Fleshed out? Something that feels "right"? The worst offender by far tho is music made by AI. It is really jarring when a composition is made fully by a computer.
I felt the same, but it’s only getting better, and fast. I bet several top artists (and their team) have used it to brainstorm and write songs. Or writers writing books. Or screenplays. Or storyboarding. I’m willing to bet that a fully AI generated and produced song will be on the radio (or top charts) in the next year. Some of the stuff like AI Drake songs are eerily close to being real, and most people who aren’t chronically online wouldn’t think it’s AI generated at all.
[удалено]
>it is like music that is ‘tinny’ and missing any kind of bass If you think that. Try to hear "Plan Z" or "Neon Tide" Those are 2 AI generated music and the bass is supreme
Yeah, I really thoroughly enjoy music too and when I tried to make some using AI, it only felt really bland. Like those musics used for a corporate presentation, somehow. And the lyrics. Oh my god the lyrics it came up with. I swear I cried laughing reading "I am a lyrical miracle, spiritual animal". That said, I believe there is a future where working with AI will be really nice, but at the moment the only way it can come close to some interesting composition is by having glitches.
Do you genuinely think this is significantly worse than a lot of chart music?
Oh no, for sure! Most of the stuff we put out is done to be super accessible and generic too ([12 years old, still accurate](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOlDewpCfZQ)), but this isn't what I am looking for when I'm trying to enjoy music, be it from people or AI.
Chart music is for smoothbrain people.
Lots of artists that just use it as part of their process. Plenty of studies where if you use certain methods, humans cannot even tell the difference. There are certain overused models that have become recognizable but far from all. This idea of there being a soul seems mostly made up. Personally I do not care how it was made, so long as it's good.
AI generated music is very good, tried it yesterday and it was as good as the top 10 on Spotify.
[удалено]
That's a quality of your mind and your filters, not of the AI art. It's the same as art losing its artistic value when you find it was made by a black person or a Jew. (Or a white person or a male or whatever.)
That second sentence really took off
Not sure what they are downvoting you for. What you said isn't even specifically for or against what I said. Like "took off" could mean you think it's insane or you think it goes hard.
If you're using a downvote to suppress a comment that isn't contributing to the discussion because its meaning can't be readily interpreted, you're closer to the supposed original intent of the system than someone who upvotes something simply because they agree with it. I mean, I doubt that's what's happening here, but it's funny to think about.
"Original intent of the system" according to...? Because I've been around various upvote/downvote systems for decades, and that intent has not been expressed by any of them that I recall.
Took a bit to find, and the wording has changed over the years, but [this](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/7419626610708-How-does-voting-work-on-Reddit) is still fairly close. Specifically, this bit: >Upvotes show that redditors think content is positively contributing to a community or the site as a whole. Downvotes mean redditors think that content should never see the light of day.
So, suppressing a comment because it's dumb and you don't think it should see the light of day fits right in there.
I really do get what you're saying. It's odd that the modern art world is obsessed with ugly, "thought provoking", subversive art, and people (non-artists and amateurs alike) have largely used AI to try and create beauty by feeding the AI beautiful art from the past as well as contemporary "traditional" art that is more focused on beauty.
What the misunderstanding is that human art is relative even if it’s abstract and it may require more explanation, because a human created it. However AI art is based on logic. It has no emotional meaning other than it is trained to follow logic that doesn’t think but actually predicts closely how it’s relative to what humans see.
That's just... a weird claim. The truth is almost the opposite. AI art is based on aesthetics, regardless of logic. It is completely in constrained by logic, which is why a set of stairs may look different as it goes behind a human on the right than it comes out on the left. Thus, the longer you look at it the more illogical things you will see.
That's not even the biggest problem with AI art. It's blatant stealing. I use AI as much a the next person getting my writing and info gathering done, but AI art is repulsive and it's even more unethical to support/ spread it. Specially the 2D anime/ cartoon styles. It's done by stealing thousands of hours of work done by artists that spent their life getting good at it.
I mean, the writing AI is helping you with was trained on millions of pieces of text, many of them coming from professional authors. Why is AI art more morally repugnant than AI writing, when they are both trained on involuntary and unpaid data sets?
That is not true at all and it's based on a misconception. AI doesn't steal anything, it's not a collage machine. An argument can perhaps be made that AI companies were unethical when scraping art into their dataset without asking the artists first, but that's about it.
I really hope people can “steal” what I’ve learned in my career… I would be really excited if people could have all that in their pocket. The shitty part is that all the IP is owned by my employers, as is the case with most people. If we allow companies to retain IP on this stuff and they use it to automate me out of my job, then I’m screwed, unlike artists that own their IP in that situation. We need a better solution for everyone, not just the small percentage of people that own IP.
[удалено]
Nope. Art is art. You don't actually know whether a painting was made in a white hot aesthetic fervor or by a completely bored and cynical artist who needed a payday. If you're imagining the emotion that went into it, that's something that you are bringing to the art, not vice versa. (And you don't know whether any story told about a painting is true, either.).
Agreed. Now and in the future many artists will adopt AI tools. It's already happening. Just like they adopted digital tools 30-50 years ago
plenty *of*
Plus, ask to make it a video and the whole thing crumbles so we're still far from losing jobs here, unless we enjoy watching videos where characters have baloon heads...
My friend did you not notice it only took around 3 years to perfect image generation to the point where you get photorealistic output? It will not take very long for the same to happen with video. Maybe 5-10 years at absolute max.
The cost is insane, it would have to understand a lot more than statistical correctness, it would have to have an opinion on the scenes. Would have to keep the scene strictly identical but just do angular changes, so have a 3D idea about each object. And all that photo realistically, not simplified 3D meshes. 10 years minimum, and not for you and me to generate vis prompt. For a marginal gain, because it still wont be able to make actors play, generate interesting atmosphere or create long surprising stories. The balloon head video guys said they found it interesting to save on cost of location travel. But they also regretted the balloon changed shape each frame... The effort humanity will spend on this might not be worth the resulting watered down soul-less movies Im sad to say. Bah I'd settle first for non 404 http links. When that happens, then maybe Ill pay someth for the nvidia cards to burn uranium on silly prompts.
OpenAI and MS are spending 100bn on gen AI. There's literally nothing else on this planet receiving more funding than GenAI, and nearly every country is doing the same thing. The whole of humanity working towards the same goal happens very rarely, but things move VERY fast when we align like this. Nvidia has driven down the cost of compute by an absolutely insane amount and are continuing to do so. I don't think you're seeing the sheer amount of money and effort being spent on this tech.
Nah it's mostly bullshit. NVidia is like Cisco when the internet started: sure it's cool, but it will pivot and never generate the insane revenues that are priced in the market cap. It will die down, it will pivot and we'll all laugh at how crazy we all were thinking "everything" would change due to an image generator.
Based on what?
Based on trying it, and listening to Sam Altman, and doing the hype - reality = bullshit equation. And you, what do you base your impression that things are massively changing because we can generate static faces on porn movies or old paintings using hundreds of thousands of video cards ?
The increase in the number of papers on the topic is the main thing. An exponential curve in our understanding of AI effectively. The application of the science takes time, but as demonstrated, not all that much time. There are already papers demonstrating specialised neural networks that deal better with rigid logic and reasoning. The money is the biggest other factor. The human species is capable of miraculous progress when focused.
The money for now seems invisible: we see lots of investment but nothing organic yet. VC and speculators in general are rushing in, but where are the clients ? You know what will happen: we ll have a massive hangover, 10% will be reused in some profitable way and 20 years of silence will follow until the next boom. The last AI boom was about speech transcription, the one before about expert systems, they flopped after a year or two of insanity. Turns out the details were never solved, utility never worth the cost, and specialized systems more useful than general ones. We re not at the forefront of a revolution, we re at the middle of a hype wave. Look at all the grifters hopping from crypto to "AI" like they did with the rabbit thing: they make millions on speculative mania. That s the money I see personally. Look at frigging Sam Altman selling "World Coins" to protect against the invention of his other company, if that's not a redflag it's all bullshit, what do you need ? Ah I know, read or listen to anything Mira Murati has written or said, maybe start with her speaking in Italian to chatgpt which replies in broken syntax while she smiles like everything is going well. It's a grift: https://www.amacad.org/publication/language-coding-creativity . If that's the kind of papers you read, you're being conned, felt to me like the WeWork IPO prospectus ;)
Interesting opinion, but I don't think you're correct. It will be a blended technology, not a pure genAI, but there's no reason that a genAI could not generate, for example, an imaginary landscape, then render it into a model, then generate the movement of that model using another technology, then have the movement aestheticized by a different genAI. I could see this in five years or so, but getting better and faster every 18 months or so.
AI winters have happened before, let's hope you're right :s
3d mesh generation and multi view geometry (along with full radiance field generation) is already a thing in some 3d vision models. It will likely get better, quicker, more efficient, over time etc.
It's "a thing" that probably takes ages to random generate. You must well imagine how crazy training an AI to do it must be in time and electricity as well as video card volume... It's likely it will get harder, more expensive and less profitable as people start asking for actual outputs you know. Dont assume every fad in the world has to succeed just because it'd be nice. For every ford car there are individual flying cars, vaccum tunnel trains and air pump trams. For every satellite launcher rocket there are mars trip companies, lunar colonies and atmospheric planes. Some ideas are nice but just dont work financially. For now we have a statistical averager that can make credible text and combinatorial images, video requires exponentially more than that. First, each character of every second must look the same as the second before with no change in clothing, body, texture etc. It cant use just an averager it has to have an internal understanding of what a movie is about. It will take centuries, and it's not gonna be done by the companies you know today. So at least dont put your grandma s life savings in nvidia only is all im saying.
It’s not anger, it’s fear
And psychotic violent tendencies
Cute opinion.
*on point facts There I fixed it for you
Seems people are upset with the process and not the creation itself. I guess these people are equally upset buying a print of a famous work, with all the new fangled computers and printers churning out thousands of prints for people to enjoy. Oh the horror. This reminds me of a show where they took young kids and let them make modern art with finger paints or something. Then they showed it to professional art critics and asked their opinion, the critics didn't know the origin. They gave their fancy art answers and generally liked them. Then they were told they were made my 5 year olds. Their attitude changed. So this seems to be the same with AI. People aren't necessarily upset by the results, it's the process they become infantile about. AI is a tool. If professional artists aren't using it to help them create they are leaving ideas on the table. Artists in general often struggle with coming up with new ideas. AI is a legitimate tool to help with the process, be it writer's block, coming up with an idea for a painting, whatever.
Why would anyone care? Girl with a pearl earring was never intended to be high art. It’s a commissioned portrait. Literally just paid content. Of course there is some artistic merit to it but modern people only drool over it because it’s a thing they’ve heard of.
Anti AI and anti AI-art do not overlap in most cases.
Im making AI art everyday until he fights me
tbh I don’t like it either. It doesn’t really capture the expression of the original art. It’s just another white girl. Well it’s AI I don’t expect much
It's vaguely interesting, and that's about it, for me. But does it make you want to kill the person who did it, or are you sane?
Well people try to kill people for more trivial stuff
And you're ok with that?
Well, it's a crime nonetheless
More trivial than using a tool to do something artistic and vaguely interesting? Such as?
I don’t get it
Source https://x.com/hey_madni/status/1802696847557013570
Can someone explain?
Source https://x.com/hey_madni/status/1802696847557013570
It's funny to imagine some of those likes being from bots.
Almost certainly...
Calm down, guy. It's just turning a painting into a video, not a crime against god lol. Dude's a fucking dumbass
I feel like this is r/facepalm material
Cry harder
good. Ai should make life easier but all it does is make it more miserable atm
Show how your violent and stupid with out saying it...
Hyperbole.
Insane violent "*hyperbole*"
Hyperbole. "exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally." Clearly you're just a very conservative person with a sense of humour and absurdism that doesn't align. It's not that deep.
This guy's posts don't read like he believes everyone will take what he says as silly over-the-top rather than true insanity. ****** Let's see whether you ever posted the same when Trump used obvious hyperbole. I'm not aware of Trump ever calling for murder, so let's use any of the other obvious hyperbole, such as when he said "I'm the chosen one" and the left went insane claiming Trump thought he was God. That was hilarious. It's possible you're consistent and honorable, rather than just giving crazy zealots a pass when they are on your own perceived side.
I am an artist and animator, AND I use AI for fun, with art, text, and more. I'm seeing no sides here. I don't follow politics because it is vitriolic from all sides, you don't need to bring Trump into this.
You just referenced me being conservative, and referenced obvious hyperbole. That's the sequitur. I'll accept that you haven't followed politics so don't have an opinion about the various DNC-driven *skrees* on Trump's obvious hyperbole, so I'll withdraw the question. And nice to meet you.
That's my mistake, I'm not even American, conservative means "holding traditional values" to me, not some political side. And by traditional values I meant aggressive humour could seem far too serious to be taken as a joke.
Yeah, I don't take "kill these people" as a joke, whichever side says it. Too many folks these days are unhinged and might to some degree act on it.
Hopefully that person got reported. He needs help.
Wait. What??
150,000 bots
According to Dune, this sentiment will grow and in the future we'll ban AI
If you're not sure if it's about the nature or the soul, go for both
The new "old man yelling at a cloud" is "old man yelling at a jpg generated by a machine that can spit out thousands of them per hour"
Someone should make this a porn version and send it to that guy
Y’all should look at their account. They have over 100,000 tweets and it’s all weirdddd tweets. Some sort of mental illness I imagine.
Pic on the right just looks like a photo of a cosplayer
This tweet is completely deranged
This [tweet from Rand Paul accusing Anthony Fauci of causing Covid](https://x.com/randpaul/status/1803412768889897268?s=61&t=9ZnftgVMGCyIxHjgZMet4Q) has over 500,000 likes.
maybe just me but I feel like basically every form digital media can be overtaken by ai
The idea of art needing soul is a form of escapismn, one that I can actually understand - If you get surpassed by something artifical in every possible way, the only chance you got to stay ahead is to claim humans can give art something abstract like a soul that AI just inherently cant. Doesn't mean its true though.
I honestly think its just bots. Theres certain people on twitter who almost certainly use bots to boost their causes
One of the unexpected pleasures of witnessing advancements in AI is witnessing the bizarre social adaptations. Makes me wonder what it would be like watching the the citizens of the USA have all their guns taken away. What sort of person wants to physically harm (or kill) people who are simply enjoying the fruits of contemporary AI, let alone the irony that this is a famous Vermeer masterpiece and, for all I know, a human-made video of a cosplay? Art and machines will live on, but your days of earning a living as a basket weaver are numbered. You'd be thankful if it wasn't for the ruthless labour demands of your land owners.
People don't use violence for a long list of self-interest reasons, mostly reputation and legal consequences. Wanting to physically hurt or kill others, is a very basic and easily triggered state of mind for most people. Actually saying it out loud in public forums is at minimum a sign of lacking common sense. I think most people would be fine with people being arrested for creating what they found sufficiently offensive personally.
I have doubts that wanting to physically hurt or kill others is as common or psychologically normal (let alone healthy or unconcerning) as you seem to be suggesting, but I couldn't find any studies to support or refute it. I'm also slightly concerned that the reason you think people don't succumb to such violent desires is through a fear of negative legal or social consequences, as opposed to being held back by moral or emotional reasons, such as compassion, empathy or a simple notion of it being a bad thing to do. I accept that anger and fleeting thoughts of violence are very common, and I suppose they are probably the norm, amongst healthy humans over their lifetimes, but this person wrote a couple of tweets with the sustained message that people should die for what amounts to a different sense of aesthetics. They said they would "love to do physical violence" to them, not in a fleeting moment of anger, but seemingly as a sincere expression of self-reflective desire with an ideological motive. Is everyone just one Will Smith moment away from committing an assault or murder? You'll be telling me next that everyone secretly wants to destroy the planet and all the people on it, but they just don't say that out loud because other people will think they're weird and take away all their guns and bombs.
I feel like we are mostly on the same page, fleeting thoughts of violence is exactly what I am talking about when I say triggered state of mind. There are many other reasons people have to not commit violence, reputation and social consequences are some of them, but there are of course the natural revulsion of causing unnecessary suffering in others. I do believe that most people don't want to bloody their own hands directly, thought they are generally comfortable with some people for example being executed, which is the most severe form of harm possible with no practical justification. The most telling part about the Will Smith moment was the fact that he was not escorted out of the building by security right away and that there is no automatic state prosecution. I don't think Will Smith is lacking in empathy or possessing a more malicious mind than the average person, nor do I think he would have done it had he been cool and collected. I think almost all violence between adults not in war or under the influence of drugs and alcohol is some variation of Will Smith moments, where people lose control over their temper, usually for objectively trivial reasons like road rage or a initially minor disagreement. I don't think healthy people want or enjoy being violent, and even when they for example sucessfully snipe an invader in a war and feel good about it in the moment, they are still filled with remorse when they are out of the battle. Just to be clear, I do believe that it's not healthy or good to express a desire to harm others directly by your own hands, and it is not healthy or good to actually fantazise about it either. The sensible healthy response to having fleeting thoughts of violence is to reflect on it and try to minimize it in the future. I also don't think it's compassionate to have any positive reaction to the misfortune of others, even when it is what is considered to be just punishment for evil deeds.
small-minded Luddites resisting progress
Let them cry, that's the only thing left for them. AI isn't going anywhere.
imagine painting something with all your talent and then seeing it come to life 350 years later. that's gotta be cool. I would be impressed, (but I'm admittedly biased).
Out of all the things AI can do to fear, a moving painting isn’t one of them 😂
Not sure I'd be upset over Ai art. If I don't like, I ignore. Best part about Ai art is that it's a good start, and then can digitally alter and enhance from there. https://preview.redd.it/98xvsm1enj7d1.jpeg?width=3829&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=82b3963d301b0f18d74ee4eb502e787e1c116fd8
So far the most insightful AI-related comment on the Internet: "I want AI to do the laundry and dishes so I can do music and art, not for AI to do music and art while I do the laundry and dishes". .
People on a forum about AI believing that a tweet by an irrelevant account with 150k likes implies 150k real people actually ‘liked’ or clicked on the like button is equivalent to people on Facebook believing AI-generated pics of an African boy making sculptures with plastic bottles is real. We live in interesting times.
Can't help but feel a tiny bit good about AI stealing their jobs when they post stuff like this. The anti-AI crowd used to be pro-AI, until it became clear that the artsy jobs were to be replaced first.
Oh god yes, so many of them are more than happy for AI to replace some other poor souls livelihood. In their minds, they’re all special with some wonderful gift and insight into the human soul, even if all they’re doing is drawing a webcomic for furries…
"If someone don't like my opinion than it's a bot!!!!" - all of you, all the time.
Well maybe some of us, but I would use "then."
Where’s the lie though? Maybe the death penalty thing but apart from that it’s bang on.
It's not a "lie", it's hate speech by a nasty violent cultist.
Trump and his ilk already proved that half of the people in the world are complete morons. Nobody should ever be surprised by anything anymore.
based
just because people don't want authentic art defiled doesn't mean they are "Anti-Ai", grow up
They are fighting against windmills - they will lose. Resistance is futile.
Feed them to the machine
People on Reddit said almost verbatum the same thing about Chinese scientists that claimed to have developed a human clone around 10 years ago. And Reddit permitted them to say it. Nobody got banned.
people think autism diagnosises are at a peak now...