[ Rules / FAQ ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / x ]

/x/ - /x/

For everything creepy, morbid, or occult
Name
Email
Message

*Text* => Text

**Text** => Text

***Text*** => Text

[spoiler]Text[/spoiler] => Text

Image
Direct Link
Options NSFW image
Sage (thread won't be bumped)

Janitor applications are open


Check the Catalog before making a new thread.
Do not respond to maleposters. See Rule 7.
Please read the rules! Last update: 04/27/2021

1674437311441245.p…

AI art: The end of humanity's soul? Anonymous 8297

I'm kind of freaking out about this whole AI art thing. Souless machines that learn on huge data sets to produce art. It just feels demonic. Why did the techbros think this would be a good idea at all? This thing will replace artists, I know it might not feel like it yet but give it enough time and it will. This is why I'm so scared, genuinely. What do artists have left? Why curse all of humanity out of its own way of expression?

Anonymous 8299

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.

Anonymous 8300

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

Anonymous 8302

>>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.

Anonymous 8303

>>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.

Anonymous 8304

>>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.

Anonymous 8305

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.

Anonymous 8306

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

Anonymous 8307

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

Anonymous 8308

>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

Anonymous 8309

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.

Anonymous 8310

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

Anonymous 8314

>>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.

Anonymous 8315

>>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.

Anonymous 8319

>>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.

Anonymous 8322

>>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.

Anonymous 8323

>>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.

Anonymous 8324

>>8323
We really are nona.

Anonymous 8336

>>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.

Anonymous 8338

>>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.

Sage 8342

>>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?

Anonymous 8344

>>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

Anonymous 8345

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.

Anonymous 8346

>>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

Anonymous 8348

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

Anonymous 8349

>>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

Anonymous 8350

>>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.

Anonymous 8351

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

Like fearing synthesizers or autotune.

Anonymous 8352

>>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

Anonymous 8357

>>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.

Anonymous 8359

>>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.

Anonymous 8361

Funny a few days ago I was reading an article about AI art and how art schools are dealing with it. https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgpzz3/ai-art-in-schools
tl;dr some classes forbid it, some encourage using it for inspiration, and some art students use it for that purpose while others don't like it.
Seems like the general consensus from anywhere though

Anonymous 8396

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.

Anonymous 8397

>>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



[Return] [Catalog]
[ Rules / FAQ ] [ meta / b / media / img / feels / hb / x ]