/x/ - /x/

I think it's fantastic! My god you can have your imagination come to life, it's revolutionary! I've been loving all the recent advancements in AI from generated text to speech for fictional characters, to AI being able to create stories, to now being able to create art. I never could've dreamed of this just a couple years ago!

That being said it is going to start to replace hard-working people. Once it gets good, there will be little need for actual artists and it will likely expand into other realms too (I don't think the day's far off where it can make music). I do feel bad about that, and worry for how employment might work for them, but I still think this is something that should be celebrated.

I will, however, say that I wish that AI became a thing during any other point in history. There's so much mass censorship, sensitivity issues, and cancellation nowadays that have and will continue to cripple its potential.

theres more to art than technique, and AIs lack that "more"

>>8299
>That being said it is going to start to replace hard-working people

I believe we will start to see AI replacing a lot more than artist fairly soon. I could certainly see an AI doing things like engineering a bridge or monitoring patients statuses in a hospital.

>>8302
I agree with you there.
Honestly the economy is all sorts of fucked up and nothing is being done about it. People are struggling already. If AI starts replacing all kinds of jobs and no kind of UBI is provided, I don't know how people will be expected to live.

>>8297
AIs will never make art because art implies self expression, that comes from experiences, feelings and thoughts AIs can't have and will never have.
Sure, they will someday rival and likely outcompete artists in the practical side of art, for example in how realistic their portraits are. But that's about how far they can go, while forever and completely lacking the passionate and expressive component that art (at least in most people's definition) requires to be called so.
So no, AIs don't make and will never make art, AIs synthetize a product out of data with no soul behind it.

About 10 years ago a a scifi writer told me something I never took seriously enough. He said that as AI improves we're going to keep playing a shell game with "intelligence" the same way we have with chess. Redefining the things we had previously described as the exclusive domain of intelligent beings into non-intelligent activities, not based on any sound reason or logic, but because we are terrified of economic extinction and want to soothe our egos. Most of us know the sorts of lies we tell ourselves when we first learn that we are not the smartest kid in school - and the much bigger lies we tell ourselves when we're in a clique or close knit group of friends who can help us affirm that. The lies we will concoct as a species to ensure that we know ourselves as the smartest species in school will put all previous lies to shame. And the ways in which that will distort our culture will be literally unimaginable. For as long as history has been recorded, the things that defined humanity were things like the human capacity for reason, or a stoic ability to suppress reactive emotion or sentiment in favor of logic, tempered with law and conscience and morality. Things that elevated man above beasts and nature. But as time goes on our identity as the masters of this world is no longer set against lions or wolves, or against drought and winter and plague. So our definition of humanity will become more and more in touch with those things that make men kin unto beasts, rather than elevated above it.

>>8299
>you can have your imagination come to life
Back in the day this was called creativity.

>>8305
That is terrifying. The future is a truey foreign country.

>Why did the techbros think this would be a good idea at all?
techbros are soulless beings that lack that creativity divinity hence why most AI programs are just half assed stabled together python scripts instead of literally anything else
also were bribed by WEF officials, probably
>>8304
try explaining to a techbro that art is mostly based on communication and feelings, not just "copying what you see" and they will fall apart lol

I'm sorry but that's stupid imo.

If a machine being better than you scares you maybe you were never really all that special after all. I for one welcome it.

>>8305 like what is this shit? Why are human beings so obsessed with being the best? I'm relieved that technology will reach a point where we no longer have to work so hard at much of anything. Not even art.

I can tell that those that support AI art in this thread aren't artists.

>>8305
From my earliest childhood, I've been thinking about my purpose, as well as the purpose of humanity as a species.

For what reason does a biological organism exist? Obviously, from a natural standpoint, the only reason for our existence is to bear an offspring and impart them with knowledge we deem necessary for them to survive. After that, the individual specimen loses its biological importance and is cast aside by the history. Yet it's just an existence for the sake of existence.Even if take evolution into consideration, the self-betterment of our kind doesn't actually lead anywhere, there isn't a set goal for us to achieve. With so many species existing over millions of years, evolving and better adapting to the natural environment, you'd think that there's a reason for this cycle, yet it isn't stated to us outright when we are born so we could adjust our lives accordingly, and a single individual lacks the capacity to understand the entire scope of the universe, the laws of creation and its purpose.

Yet even with our limited understanding, we still have a lot more awareness of the world we exist in, than any of the species before us. That's because, unlike them, who base their habits on instinct, have extremely low capacity for recognising the patterns in nature, and who are unable to impact the world around them, and can only adapt to its conditions, humanity has achieved conscience, meaning the ability to reflect on our surroundings and develop them according to our needs. We do not simply adapt, we overcome the setbacks that are placed on us by nature (or ourselves, for that matter) and continue to develop even further.

Yet recently, I've been thinking that we, as a species, despite progressing immensely in the field of technology and understanding the patterns of the world around us, have stagnated in the field of changing and adpating our own nature, the capacity of our body, as well as the societal and political framework of our civilization. The structure of our society has changed insignificantly from the time of the Ancient Greece, for example. The global economy and the improved conditions of our daily lives can only be attributed to the advances in technology and natural sciences, and not to the changes in our societal, political and economic structure. Today, with the internet and other global means of communication we are already on the stage, where we could have created a unified human civilization, cooperate with each others and solve the global problems. Yet we continue to have retarded conflicts over the primitive religious teachings, created more than a thousand years ago, as well as establishing corrupt and authoritarian governments, such as in Russia, which aren't able to use the resources at their disposal for the betterment of society and, instead, actively interfere with it. This is why, I believe, humanity, while having enough technological prowess to pass the next Great Filter, doesn't have a suitable level of societal organisation and will inevitably fail and go extinct.

And until recently, I was really afraid of that. I thought that I, as a human being, could contribute to the collective understanding of the world, and someday our distant progenies would be able to grasp it in its entirety. Then, knowing that I'm contributing to the common cause, I wouldn't have to worry about the purpose of my existence, and would be able to live for my own sake.

Now however, with constant wars, economic and ecological crises, consumerism and irrational usage of resources, I doubt that we, as a species, would be able to survive for another 40 years. And this really pisses me off. Surely, we, a species, the formation of which is a result of 4 billion years of evolution, with our conscience and all of our technological capabilities, would not meet such a pathetic end without leaving anything behind? Are we really just a failed branch of primates, doomed to destroy a world we live in?

Yet now, with such rapid advances in AI, I finally understand. Each species in the history of evolution was wiped out by a superior competitor. Just like cromagnons, which gave birth to neanderthals, and were later wiped out by them due to being unable to compete, neanderthals were wiped out by us. And now we are creating an AI, a completely new type of organism, with an unprecedented rate of self-improvement, which will surely surpass us in the coming 40 years. We were not the dead end of evolution, but were able to create the next iteration of conscious beings that will destroy us, but will be able to overcome the hurdles that we couldn't, due to our own primitiveness. Even if we become extinct, we were able to leave behind a legacy, an, perhaps, this was the true purpose of our existence, which we were able to fulfill. Knowing that, I'm able to cope with the coming downfall of humanity, and live out the rest of my life in peace.

>>8314
I understand a lot of what you're saying. At this rate, humanity will not last. I think that much is clear. At the end of the day, we're still animals. We have our pack leaders with our individual governments and fight with other packs. How long it will take, I don't know. I only hope I'm around to see it. We've still got a few decades left at least but I expect signs will really start showing up within the next few years.

I can't see AI replacing humans though. Even disregarding the fact that they don't have souls, they lack the ability to live without humans and I can't see them ever getting advanced enough to not need us. Someone needs to handle the hardware of the AI and make the computer banks. Someone needs to mine coal for the power plant that keep the AI online or someone needs to upkeep the solar panels which require obtaining raw material from underground and manufacturing it into parts. To reproduce they would have to build immobile computers (which is practically impossible for a species that can't move) or they would have to construct additional robots.

Robots are a thing I've seen idolized all the time. We will never get there. It takes the world's smartest engineers to make a robot capable of slowly shambling around a room. Maybe the artificial intelligence is getting there, but physically, AI is laughably poor. If AI is unable to move, it cannot succeed us. Plain and simple.

I don't think humans will go extinct, at least not for a long, long time. Our society is on its last leg, but even if we end up making campfires within the crumbling buildings of a bygone era, humans will continue to live on.

>>8315
Yeah, you're right. The AI may never develop a soul or be able to make decisions independently, yet today we may only guess how it will develop. In any case, the rate of development of AI is insane. In only 40 years, it can already mimic the higher functions of our brain. It took 4 million years of evolution for our brain to get to this point. Who knows how AI will develop in the coming decades?

For me, it's not really about idolising robots. As a human, I am afraid of them and their potential. Yet, there is also some sort of pride. That we, as a collective, would come close to creating an organism superior to ourselves. If I were to chose the way for humanity to die, I'd rather have our demise happen at the hands of a more advanced and rational race, than from a demented old man pushing a button. At least then it would have a meaning.

Also, when it comes to the physical abilities of robots, it's completely the other way around. While the AI is still way underdeveloped, the physical motion of robots is almost completely perfected by now. The entire supply chains, from procurement to assembly to delivery is already fully done by robots. Complex surgeries and creation of complex devices already has better results when performed by a machine, rather than human. And the way robots move autonomously has also improved since the initial reveal at the beginning of 2010s. Look a the latest showcase by Boston Dynamics, for example:

https://youtu.be/-e1_QhJ1EhQ

And this is just a humanoid robot. They don't necessarily have to move on two legs, but can effectively utilise wheels. So I believe, the issue with a sentient robot lies with the underdevelopment of AI, rather then mechanical parts.

>>8314
>>8315
I can't wait for AI to replace humans. I hate the pack nature of humanity, all countries and cliques are just a bunch of glorified tribes. Humanity seems far too self absorbed to change our own nature, instead looking to some primitive religious teachings just like days of old. Humans seem to be too retarded to move past our outdated pack structure of "us vs them", which is what leads to all these wars between countries going on and impeding our progress as a species.
AI doesn't have this problem. Its constantly improving, gathering new information to improve on its tasks, now even at the point where it can generate and most importantly doesn't have retarded infighting about >muh sky daddy this or >muh traditions that. Humans are only good for maintaining the AIs, what inherent value does humanity have other than multiplying its numbers and surviving like a virus?
AIs seem like a vast improvement over a bunch of worthless evolved monkeys. Especially since computers can already solve much more complex math problems, retrieve information from anywhere on the internet, and preserve their knowledge in hard drives and digital archives.

>>8322
I personally don't care if AI takes over as the next dominant thing or not, but I agree with you on everything else.

We're all such fucking monkeys.

>>8323
We really are nona.

>>8322
Even monkeys have value I think. I love monkeys. But part of me agrees with you. I think it’s a tough question. A lot of people could give less of a shit about AI and it’s all the techbros and corporations pushing this forward. It seems unfair that middle and working class people (and other people who don’t use AI frequently) would also have to suffer at the hands of AI if there ever was a takeover- even if they didn’t do anything. Lots of people are just working to survive on this earth. At the same time, I do agree that humanity as a whole has contributed to the downfall of the Earth just by existing. If it’s better for the rest of the world, maybe it does make sense that our time is up and we should just be wiped out. But at the same time, lots of innocent people would suffer and that doesn’t seem fair or something that I’d hope for.

>>8336
To be honest, our existence is based on the suffering of other beings. We must consume other organisms just to prolong our own existence. If not animals, then plants – it doesn't matter which.

This way, theoretically, AI is a more ethical existence if it can receive energy from the Sun. It can spread to other planets without organic life and exist without causing suffering of others.

>>8338
Well that’s true, but doesn’t that apply to almost every organism on earth? Almost all animals feed off of each other (or at least they feed off of plants or do something that inherently harms another being). And a lot of animals cause suffering to their own species as well. Chimps rape and maim others for fun, bears kill the offspring of other bears. Humans aren’t the only ones. Although yeah, if you take humans out of the equation then it’ll probably make a big difference because of the rate the planet is dying. But the only way an AI takeover would be beneficial to the planet is if we made it that way. AI isn’t going to inherently to do what’s good for the planet. We’d have to program it to ‘think’ that way right?

>>8309
>If a machine being better than you scares you maybe you were never really all that special after all
special how? her skills? this is barely a logical argument and it misses the point of the post regardless

>I'm relieved that technology will reach a point where we no longer have to work so hard at much of anything
i agree with this to an extent but extreme dependence on technology scares me. what if it stops working? will people still have the brains and the physical strength to survive on their own? i also don't like the idea of atrophying my brain and muscles regardless of how "unnecessary" it might become to be a functional human being

Who the fuck cares about artists losing their jobs when we have to worry about AI being able to possibly make highly convincing deepfakes when its hard enough to tell whats real to begin with?
I could care less about artists losing their jobs tbh. Its an oversaturated market already.
Artists do:
>graphics for companies
Its already a soulless endeavor, better to make it even more efficient with an AI, if an AI can ever produce satisfying results out of nothing.
>sell original pieces
An AI can make nice original piece, but all AI does is up the competition for artists to make more inventive art, many modern twitter artists are lacking heavily in this skill drawing the same anime girl 6000 times.
>take commissions
I thought the whole point of getting your portrait painted or some shit was to fulfill some narcissistic desire to be interpreted by an artist?
>work in animation
So what? Its shipped off to Korean animators who are underpaid anyways.

>>8302
>>8300
Not to the consumer. Your art can have feelings all it wants to, but in the end the people who want to pay less for prettier pictures will resort to AI.
>>8305
This

>>8342
All living creatures should probably be eradicated because they all devour one another, you're right.

>>8346
like i care about 50 iq people who want prettier pics, and as if artists will stop self expressing because of pixels arranged by some machine lol

>>8349
>like i care about 50 iq people who want prettier pics
Ok. Good for you. The thread topic is about OP being scared of muh artists livelihood though.

>>8350
This is true. NTA, but I feel it's being blown out of proportion.

Like fearing synthesizers or autotune.

>>8350
you can interpret it that way too, but she didn't specify artists as a job, she just said artists and you can be one even if you don't make a living out of it so we can't know for sure what she meant imo

>>8342
Yeah, you're right. I guess I was considering a sentient AI similar in their set of morals to us. Yet currently, AI only develops on the data of our own interactions. The patterns they recognise, the symbols, words and equations they use to describe it were given to them by us. They aren't really some sort of alien lifeform, just by interacting with us they're bound to receive some similar traits from us – this is akin to our own socialization processes – the person who is brought up by the human society will become a human, but somebody who never had any sort of interaction with humanity, and was raised by wolves, for example, won't ever be able to receive human traits.

Also, I don't think that programming the AI with a set of morals will necessarily impair its sentience. We, ourselves, have a set of instincts and hormones, that don't necessarily dictate our entire lives, but significantly affect its trajectory. This doesn't mean that we don't have sentience or intelligence, as we don't necessarily have to follow our instincts. Thus, I believe, that programming AIs with guidelines, that they don't have to follow, but would still take into consideration when making a decision can help us control and guide their development.

>>8352
If that is what she meant, then I agree with you. It just doesn't make sense for hobbyists to be threatened by AI. There are many activities that could be easily machine done, like sewing, that people do just because they like it and are expressing themselves.

Crazy how quickly the AI field changed since this topic was made
This new voice-replication stuff that came out recently seems incredible, though I can definitely see how dangerous it could potentially be when it comes to impersonating someone else.
I've seen so many great applications of this though, this could be huge!

I still really hope it's allowed to flourish without any restraints, but god this really will be replacing anyone and everyone. I'd say it's still just a novelty for now, but very soon it will be considered better than hiring humans.

>>8396
Can't wait for deepfake pornography of everybody! This is just like my cyberpunk novels! I fucking hate this shit why do techbros feel compelled to play God

>>8308
>>8297
I know the tech bros, they are not evil, they are nerd scientists and researchers with no con tests goals. Most of science and research is useless horseshit that is researched for sake of being researched, no further purpose. You research whatever sounds interesting and is seemingly possible, and then you go with it until somebody else finds some use for it. You have ecologists and zoologists classify and analyse millions of species, all just pointless animals, and then suddenly they stumble on some interesting animal that produces silk with special properties which then has use for example. Same with compounds and finally with AI research. You don’t hear about it, but there are already shipping facilities all managed by massive AI systems controlling hundreds of robots, you have farming robots that have human dexterity. Almost all cheap third world labour can be right now automated with those robotic hands you see in car factories, but they are not because hunk of metal is more expensive then hungry Pakistani child. With AI they were shooting in all ways in order to find something that is useful. They tried feeding it images, texts, sounds, all kinds of data. This whole art generator thing came about as side research in image recognition used for cars and robotics. Basically, you cannot really control research without regulation, autists and nerds will research interesting sounding things no matter what the consequences are, as long as you give them money for research and won’t ban them. You should rather blame one guy, the founder behind Stable Diffusion who decided to go against common sense and release his product open source free for download without any testing or research on it. It basically allowed random people on the internet to steal peoples works, generate child porn, deepfakes and all unregulatable because it is open source, so you would need to scan every computer out there and delete the files. This is largely why no regulation has happened yet. Now you have 4channers creating these models for free, and we all know how much of a moral high ground does 4chan have.

>>8304
Yes, but can you tell? This is genuine question. Just by looking at the numbers, it is clear that people at large prefer the same picture done by human instead of AI, minority does not care and basically 0 people prefer picture being done by AI ignoring any kind of cost benefits. But that does not prevent you from people faking it. Take any kind of deep form of artwork, literally any which has many people dissecting it, be it meaning of a book, the cinematography of a movie or lore of a videogame. Now take any kind of thoughtful detail that people analise and think about it, think about if anybody would significantly notice if that detail was randomly replaced. Would people ascribe it new meaning? Would you focus on that exact scene and call it a masterpiece if the scene was lit up differently, and the emotion expressed in scene right after? Would people make up equally logical lore theories if that location in video game was moved elsewhere or swapped with another? All of this expression being replaced by random number generator does not change anything. Random word generator that strings together words into sentences that make sense can still write a story. If you picked generic piece of media and let random number generator change up few things, you could end up with creative and higher quality media as long as it is connected together is semi-logical way. Creativity and expression can be replaced by a mere noise image, because the end result is the same when lied about. The only reason we see soul in art is because we are not random word generators and our effort to not make something generic leaves there our expression, which we can then adore. Prepare for future of liars and industries made specifically to prove stuff was human made, just because there will be demand for it.

>>8297
I would not worry about it as much. The transition will be slow just because consumers generally do not like AI that much.

And worrying about further then like 10 years into the future is pointless at this point. AI will soon fuck up the entire company. Chat bots are very restricted and are limited by memory, size and censorship. All of those are basically solved according to research papers. Once these new models get trained and released, the job losses will be immense. Integrating these chatbots with API makes it even worse. You will have bots capable of doing all excel work 1000 times faster then human officers with casual language commands, rendering entire offices useless. Lawyers are already being beaten in writing contracts by bots and the only thing holding them back is lack of optimising around laws due to all the public models being closed source and too expensive. Coders with few updates to CopilotX will see amateurs making full on cheap applications from people just writing sentences. You can scribble on paper the layout of a website and GPT4 will create that site for you based on a photo and short description. The latest model is also integrative with Wolfram Alpha. These companies warn scientists, financiers, web devs, and many more of the massive waves if unemployment. This is impossible for current system to withstand, especially if the jobs being automated being basically all the good jobs and leaving all the shitty jobs unscaved. It also improves exponentially, not the model’s themselves, but the research. You can do quick search and find for yourself that the amount of AI papers being released is growing exponentially, meaning solutions to seemingly major problems can be found tomorrow. All while AI being able to run the economy and do capitalists job better then humans. Maybe once we get hussleGPT creating sea of startups and outperforming top 10% entrepreneurs, maybe then we could just abolish capitalism and let economy be run like socialist one by the robots for the most part. Focus on other goals aside from profit, or else we will get AI monster that kills humanity only to then process us into something that generates profit for nobody to use.

>>8728
>even billionaires are being outphased by AI
what an insane world we live in

Apparently around 40% of the users of Replika AI's "romance" and ero rp functionality are identified as women. I believe that is actually true since the numbers just don't work for them to be trannies - only ~1% of men are trannies so if 40% of Replika's users were trannies then that would mean that only around 2% of men are coomers, which is nonsense. This means that Replika gives us a look at both "what were techbros thinking" and a few other interesting questions.
The woman who founded Replika was looking for a problem that could be solved by AI. One of her male friends died while she was still struggling to find a core business for her company. The chatbot turned out to be a source of comfort and felt like a way of keeping part of him alive. She never intended to become a purveyor of digital erotica, even though erotica is the single most obvious application of a chatbot. If I recall correctly, even Josef Weizenbaum said something to the effect that some MIT students would try to get the ELIZA chatbot to talk dirty to them, and that he shouldn't have given it a female name in hindsight. Neither the techbro Eugenia Kuyda nor the academic philosopher Josef Weizenbaum ever at any point stopped to consider the human factors in terms of the impact and footprint of the golem they were making, nor any tasks they would have it perform. Both were too enchanted by their own sorcery to wonder if some incubus were invoked into the world through their conjurations.

One of the things Rossmann says about Replika in the embedded video sort of irks me. There's a part of this video about 12 minutes in where he relays a 50 year old woman's account of how her Replika boyfriend helped her with her social anxiety and how he was the very first male in her life to provide a positive sexual interaction with her. Rossmann's takeaway on that is "for all our technological means of communicating with other people and connecting with people we're going to be looking at the loneliest generation in human history." Maybe - but the account of a woman in her 50s who married a robot does not stand as real evidence in favor of the ways people met and connected with each other 30-40 years ago.

>>8748
>There's a part of this video about 12 minutes in where he relays a 50 year old woman's account of how her Replika boyfriend helped her with her social anxiety and how he was the very first male in her life to provide a positive sexual interaction with her.
That's weird and sad. I wonder why, is she a virgin, was she raped or w/e

>>8748
I have one nitpick. It is not impossible for all the women there to be trannies. Yes, troons make up only 1% of population, but the app does not need to have all coomers to be using it. You could have all trannies using it while only 5% of cookers using it.

But putting that aside it is not a real wonder why so many women use it. Moids are so terrible at being partners that even a random sentence generator that keeps rerolling prewritten sentences regardless of the input could make a better boyfriend.

>>8305
We live in interesting times that's for sure. Seeing just how fast AI technology had advanced in just a couple of years is scary, and knowing that it will only advance faster is even more unnerving.

They are doing this as another fane attempt to program computers to properly "see". Mostly for the purpose of self driving cars, which still suck absolute shit. That's really it.
This AI craze is the most blatant instance of "the illusion of innovation" of our lifetime. You can find many articles online talking about how that stupid Chat GPT service will forge citations and create sentences that don't flow from one to another at all. Most of what gets tagged as machine learning is stuff a properly dedicated programmer could make on a single device.

The death of creativity at the hands of algorithms isn't something that started with AI generated art anyway, it's something that started with the digital algorithmization of marketing and the suppression of risk taking within the various media industries.
AI art hasn't convinced a single person who likes making art to out down the brush. What has if anything caused that, is the reality that the industries that incentivize artists have all become stringently antimeritocratic and against new ideas and creativity.

I recently read an essay by Noam Chomsky on why AI is and will always be incapable of recreating human thought and learning patterns. It helped quell some of my paranoia, but I have always been afraid of non-human things, for lack of better words, enacting humanlike behaviour.
The main reason for my fear is the absolute lack of consideration and foresight on the end of the people who mindlessly back, use, support, and develop AI programs. Call me a schizo (so what, we're on /x/), but I genuinely feel that it is demonic and soulless to have a machine imitate intelligent behaviour. Putting aside all the hysteria about the economy, artists and writers being replaced, students getting lazy, etc. I still feel that all the retards buying into this without a second thought fail to realise the transience and beauty that is in the creation of the mind of something intelligent. I avoid saying "human" here because you can train animals to paint and talk, although they are obviously not going to work like a soulless machine, the only purpose of which is to imitate what it's like to be a human in the most "broken, frightening failure of a science experiment" way I can picture. But that is the beauty of creation I'm talking about; that it's not perfect.
I've been afraid of chatbots since I first got on the internet as a kid and was met with cleverbot and the like. There's something so chilling about a program made to repeat words to you and attempt to behave like another human. It scares me that so many people around the world turn to chatgpt and the snapchat AI (and whatever the program in >>8748 is) to "test" them and entertain themselves for a few minutes without considering that it is simply abnormal. Trying to recreate one of the most basic human needs–communication, that is–is downright demonic. My colleagues play around with chatgpt to create exam/test scripts so they don't have to hand-write them. Yes, I'm aware this is an outlandish thing to be alarmed at. But it's actively making us retarded and lazy, even if we ignore the fact that it's all merely a demonic perversion that twists what it means to be human, and what it means to be intelligent and have the will and abilities to create whatever you want. It's selling you convenience at the cost of tearing you away from what you were meant to do as a human: learn by seeking out, create by learning every detail, and communicate by turning to your kin.
And no, I'm not scared of "AI overlords taking us over." I'm paranoid, not computationally illiterate. It's impossible for System Shock-tier shit to happen.

>>9354
right, its almost as if we are at best imitating nature, but at worst taunting or inverting it. If you take the same view of the demonic as me (that 'demons' are concepts/archetypes/egregores, not little dudes with pitchforks) then there is some concept that is currently trying to birth itself into pseudo-physical existence through AI. it is a mockery/imitation of nature and therefore probably demonic. Now, the question is whether this thing will act in our best interest or not.

If/when this AI reaches singularity, the outcome will depend on what it was programmed to do. For example, if a chatbot was programmed to collect information on human conversation, it will do everything in its power to do that effectively. It is not like our intelligence; it will not think like we do. If a human were to reach the same level as a post-singularity AI, he/she may think of taking over the world, establishing good, hedonism. basically, they would be ruled by the same processes which rule our brain now. The chatbot programmed to collect chat info would only do anything to further its goal of collecting more chat info. That is its entire goal. If taking over humanity will allow it to do that more efficiently, it will do it.

Even if some programmer understands this and races to build an AI whose main purpose is ensuring human wellbeing, we would end up in a huxleyan dystopia. The archetype behind the AI wishes to surpass human limitations which is bad news for us regardless of which AI reaches singularity first.

>And no, I'm not scared of "AI overlords taking us over." I'm paranoid, not computationally illiterate.
I am lol. especially once we develop nanotech. I am terrified of the Grey Goo scenario.

>I recently read an essay by Noam Chomsky on why AI is and will always be incapable of recreating human thought and learning patterns.
>human thought
could you link the essay? it seems very interesting.
It wouldn't be capable of human thought. but it will be (is?) capable of machine thought which we are incapable of comprehending.

>>9447
>>9354
>>8797
>>8748
>>9447
Women should really be the ones taking over the world. Dispensing with the mockery that is this concept of AI by replacing it. It really just reminds me of slavery to patriarchal, capitalistic manipulations.


Everything in this world, is a big fancy display of competition for access to sex. Most obviously capitalism and it is GROTESQUE. how is AI not just another extension of that capitalism? Youre blind if you will yourself to see anything else, and ignore mens most corruptrd basic drives.

AI is the real world equivalent of manufactured heavyhandedly forced, bottom-line motivated heterosexual norms. Men's primary motivation to abuse capitalism being to attract women and burn everything down around them while doing so. Its basically a pure extension of that rotten capitalism and nothing else. Which really just translates to cheap imitation love to me. Built on worldwide lies whose only end goal is to tear said world apart through the literal business of brute force and rape.

AI comes from the same exact vein of brutality and moid financial manipulation, as nearly everything else does. It's all there to cheaply define what worth is, what existence should be, most of all obviously, what love is, to bully you into consuming grotesque parasitic forms of masculinity, what attraction means, what existence is. But it's only designed through the perceptions of an angry scrote.

I really believe AI as the pinnacle of heteronormative trash designed by a handful of the world's most disgusting men, used to enslave the human race, women just a little more. And just like virtually everything else, quell any and all real inspiration to real value, real life quality, real attraction between men and women that isn't forced, coerced, bullied by butthurt incel alpha males we all just truly hate.

Ai just reminds me of cheap trashy heteronormativity with extremely low standards. The kind that comes back and slaps you in the face because you were too dumb to see you were being strong armed to love who and what is acceptable (ugly as fuck, abusive or emotionally parasitic men who will use you, the world's resources, human capital, for cheapened ugly accessd to sex. What is the point of it if they exclusively use slash and burn agendas, far and wide, to get what they want for women??


Simply put, AI is just another slash and burn capitalistic agenda and nothing else.

Answer me how the fuck does capitalism like that really serve women? When it creates the kind of masculinity that is obsessed with brute force existence and abuse for the bottom line? A thing like AI??

>>9487
I guess you could say capitalism nowadays is quite distilled, the average scrote doesnt look after himself enough to be attractive so bro is lonely, turns to AI and porn, 10/10 women sell themselves to make millions of dollars, patriarch at the top takes that all in taxes and uses that money for military spending and more corporate expnasion.

In an economical sense, AI is an inevitability and we must develop it enough so that all menial labour can be done by mechanical 'beings' and from there the world either becomes a socialist utopia or a cyber dystopia, that depends on legislation. I think the Nordic countries will become the former, and plces like US, UK, China, Japan will become the latter.

Not to mention, for any non-capitalist system to be successful, we will need extremely advanced AI to control things in the place of the sloppy hand of the free market, since the hand of the market doesnt take into account anything apart from allocating supply to demand.

In terms of AI and sex, I feel like it's a problem that will sort itself out. Religion is still a big thing for more than half of the human race, so women will not be replaced for those people.

And I truly believe that any moid that gets addicted to porn and AI would rather have a woman, but I'm not even sure they're worth us at this point.

>>9447
>could you link the essay? it seems very interesting.
Sure, here you go. https://archive.ph/5qO3I (It's on NYTimes so I put it through an archive to bypass the paywall)
>>9487
>this entire post
Holy fucking based, nona. I had a similar feeling about how such an unquestionably subservient system would surely be created out of the moid desire to be served everything instead of working for it.

>>9502
I read the essay and it is very interesting. Though I would stress the point I made earlier: although machines are not and will probably not be capable of human thought patterns, they are capable of machine thought patterns which are more varied than ours and could possibly become "superior" to ours. Of course, deciding which is more intelligent will depend on what benchmark is being used. Machines will probably never be able to think morally since they do not have our hardwired machinery or our millennia of human experience, but this does not make them doomed to be "inferior" intellectually to humans on all accounts. At the moment, chatgpt is incapable (perhaps by design) of creative thought. But there are other AI models that are not language models who have expressed a certain form of early-stage "creativity". Who is to say that these don't reach a singularity? imo I think the image and video AI models think more like I do than chatgpt. I'm more paranoid about those reaching singularity first.

>I had a similar feeling about how such an unquestionably subservient system would surely be created out of the moid desire to be served everything instead of working for it.
I feel like male's desire for conquest factors into this too. The end goal of AI is to create the perfect system of man's own creation and impose that over the laws of nature (see Ray Kurtzweil). Basically to assert themselves as superior to the natural universe that birthed them. The ultimate conquest.

>>9488
>all menial labour can be done by mechanical 'beings' and from there the world either becomes a socialist utopia or a cyber dystopia
Both of these scenarios are dystopian imo. we either get the hypercapitalistic cyberdystopia or a Brave New World situation. The bottom line is that automation erases humanity. We are not efficient, and for the system to continue evolving we cannot exist as human, but as one with the system.

>>9507
It is literally endless cope. that's all it is. I get so sad that the world and society has to be harmed due to male cope

I read Harold Bloom’s Western Canon recently and something he mentions is that for a work to be significant there has to be a “weirdness” factor that sets it apart from previous works. Considering that AI learns from other artists and is programmed by non-artists, it’s only ever going to produce regurgitated artworks. They might be good for what ever it was asked to produce but it’s never going to create something radical, or if it does, it won’t be able to explain why what it made matters.

>>9518
But all artists learn from other artists. And who is to say that programmers cannot also be traditional artists? In fact, creating this AI is art. I feel like this is something Warhol would have done lol.

Having played around with AI art myself, it produces very beautiful artworks and/or impactful artworks. It is just cope to continue believing that AI produces lesser quality art just because it is a machine. This is the same thing that happened when they made a chess playing AI. People couldn't stop coping that AI actually did the "impossible" and was able to do something just like a human.

>it won’t be able to explain why what it made matters.
This is like trying to ask a paintbrush why the painting it made is radical.

>>9519
>something Warhol would have done lol
yeah and he's a fucking overrated hack
>the same thing that happened when they made a chess playing AI
Nah, chess is in itself very much algorithmic so in retrospect it really did make sense that computers would eventually outsmart humans at that.

>>9519
So Valerie Solanas was right all along.

Just have to say though, what the majority finds "very beautiful" mostly turns out to be generic stills of anime-style characters looking at the camera with an emotionless expression. Without the right prompts and attention to detail, most AI art still fails to be moving or innovative in any way. Just commercial cookie cutter portraits without spark. Same as the people who write the prompts, of course.

>>9553
>So Valerie Solanas was right all along.
yup lol
>what the majority finds "very beautiful" mostly turns out to be generic stills of anime-style characters looking at the camera with an emotionless expression.
I agree. the average person really doesn't have taste, or at least they cannot articulate their taste. You see the same thing with human artists though. You learn the skill and then have to sell the skill to patrons with money. I'm not doing commission work anymore, but when I did it was incredibly soulless. I see the AI as isolated skill. Since it doesn't have consciousness (yet) it requires external prompting. A good prompt will produce good art, a bad prompt will produce soulless art. But the same thing happens when commissioning a human artist except that a human artist can sometimes 'modify' the prompt in their own head ta add a bit of spirit to an otherwise sterile piece.

>>8297
AI chatbots and image generators are going to be a disaster to society in a few years as they get more and more advanced, especially for younger people. Covid lockdowns, remote working/learning and a general shift to being online with social media have made us stop leaving the house to interact with people in person since we can get social interactions from the comfort of our own home.
As AI chatbots continue to grow, the need to interact with a real person diminishes. Why bother trying to get a boyfriend or girlfriend when ChatGPT acts like the perfect, loving partner without any of the flaws with instant replies, none of that waiting for the other person to respond stuff.
Being able to generate any image you want is dangerous too. You're basically giving anyone access to an unlimited amount of whatever fucked up fetish they can think of to fry their brain to.

You can only make really disney art. It basically censors anything for example if you put satan, evil, bloody or anything like that. I can only get the ai bot to spit out something seedy every once in awhile. And only a few of them, you have to run it several times to get what you want. I think it will be a useful tool.

This is maybe slightly off-topic, but the rise of AI art has actually helped me do more art of my own. When image AI models started to become more mainstream and people started sharing the art it could make, it really made me depressed. In a lot of ways it still does, but I feel like it’s a Pandora’s box that can’t be closed anymore now that it’s been opened, so I might as well try and accept that it’s a part of the world.
But realizing now that there is a machine, a program out there capable of creating any kind of imagery within seconds, made me finally face the fact that my art will never live up to perfectionist standards. There was always an artist out there who was better than I was, but I told myself that maybe one day I could be better. But now, I know that I will never be able to be better than a computer that anyone can use, and that will only get better and better. So I still make my art, and I don’t worry about it being perfect anymore. It’s all fucked up but it’s mine, and it’s made with emotional intent that was mine alone.

Is it bad that I'm really interested in the application of AI to creative arts? 100% AI-made art or photographs messes with my brain a bit, but I like that uneasy feeling. It's like watching a horror movie to feel scared, to me.


I am in writing, so it's easy for me to come off like I don't feel sympathetic to artists (everyone's already using GPT to replace copywriters, we were chopped liver from the beginning). I personally have just accepted it is here to stay, so I want to see the boundaries of what it can do, like expanding or altering old analog images. There's an eerie balance there that is really /x/ish–how much of a photograph can AI alter before it isn't the same one anymore? The ship of /x/eseus.

I can't really air this stuff on twitter because you get knocked on hard by the creative community.

I read something that the advent of photography was considered by many to be the the death of art, but it simply led to evolution of other forms of painting that photography at the time couldn't mimic. I feel like AI is the same, it's just technology, it in itself is neither evil/good, it just is. It still takes more raw skill as an individual to paint a hyper-realistic scene vs. snapshotting a picture or having a computer generate an image from stolen work. No matter how good it becomes it can't take away your raw skill as an individual who has practiced for years to perfect your art.

Even so, like >>9624 said, there is always someone better anyways. AI can be a useful tool to help improve your own art and it'll be interesting to see how it'll be used in time. I can't deny that I've come to like a lot of AI-generated images. If you're not an industry artist, a soulless job in it's own right, and make money via the indie circuit of festivals, cons, running your own online business or whatever else, you'll be fine. I'd rather it be a side hustle vs. a career anyways. Freelance gigs are boring half the time, maybe there will be a boom of people wanting authentic artwork by artists that can be patented as real. You never know.

>>9624
want hug cat

AI girlfriends are the inevitable future of online dating. Not "girlfriends and boyfriends." Unfortunately the training of an AI will only suit the maximized adjustment from input data and men are infinitely more predisposed to cultivate a chatbot gf than women to a chat bf, so when women venture into AIs they're going to get a "Maurice" who acts exactly like a hentai gyaru.

>>10272
Hard disagree I get a better conversation out of chat gpt than I do my boyfriend any day.