It has begun…

[- S -]

 

Oh no…

 

 

[Alfred]

https://www.peppercarrot.com/en/viewer/artworks-src__2022-12-06_Rain-City_by-David-Revoy.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ7g2netwoY

 

[Old Bruce]

@Alfred, I read the 

31 minutes ago, - S - said:

Oh no…

as a comment about how all viewers of original handmade artwork are now assuming that it must be done by an AI engine.

[Alfred]

@Old Bruce, I read it exactly the same way! That’s why I attached a screenshot of the artist’s tweet where he wrote:

[firstdefence]

Theres a song about this...

"Old McDonald had a real brush AI,AI,NO

and with the brush he made some real art AI, AI, NO

with a real swish here and a real dab there, here a dab there a dab every where a dab dab

Old McDonald had a real brush AI, AI, NO"

[SrPx]

All in all, I love that people is reacting against the AI image generation. I don't mind having to post sketches and stages of the process, small price to pay.

[SrPx]

...But it's kindda funny they say that about David Revoy, the guy behind all concept art of several Blender movies, that has been years talking about drawing tablets (a pair of blog articles ranking great in google), brushes, painting....helped several painting apps to improve...

And yet I applaud the anti AI spirit (but no bullying, pretty plueaze).

It can happen more with styles very similar to the "vibe" that AI seems to produce more often.

[JakeStaines]

I don't think there's any point responding to such questions with anything other than a simple block and move on, frankly. It's not "most people" who make such assumptions, it's people with the special interest in machine-learning image-generation, that's all. Most people still see a nice picture and assume an artist made it on purpose.

(I dislike the term "AI art", though, since really it's neither. Machine-learning algorithms produce entirely by rote, there's zero "intelligence" involved; and there's no intention, no creativity, so it's hard to call it "art" either. It's a fascinating and impressive technology which undoubtedly has a lot of promise for assistive workflows, but equally a lot of difficult ethical questions that so far have only been glossed over by its adherents.)

[firstdefence]

8 hours ago, JakeStaines said:

I don't think there's any point responding to such questions with anything other than a simple block and move on, frankly. It's not "most people" who make such assumptions, it's people with the special interest in machine-learning image-generation, that's all. Most people still see a nice picture and assume an artist made it on purpose.

(I dislike the term "AI art", though, since really it's neither. Machine-learning algorithms produce entirely by rote, there's zero "intelligence" involved; and there's no intention, no creativity, so it's hard to call it "art" either. It's a fascinating and impressive technology which undoubtedly has a lot of promise for assistive workflows, but equally a lot of difficult ethical questions that so far have only been glossed over by its adherents.)

Ultimately, it removes the human, but then the end result is a soulless product. The AI would not "think" to take a photo because it saw beauty and had an appreciation of the reasoning and aesthetics, that it would be moved by a sunset, that the experience at that time would be attached to that photo as a memory of emotion and experience nor carry on to make that photo art so that other AI could appreciate the soulful vision. 

 

[Ron P.]

4 hours ago, firstdefence said:

The AI would not "think"

I wouldn't bet on that, not now. You know what the Singularity is, right? Singularity, AI thinking (which it does now), is only a Neuralink away Which the Musk claims will be ready in 6 mos. The black ops here have been developing AI which is a hair away from totally thinking for itself. That's what's known outside DARPA.

[JakeStaines]

5 minutes ago, Ron P. said:

I wouldn't bet on that, not now. You know what the Singularity is, right? Singularity, AI thinking (which it does now), is only a Neuralink away Which the Musk claims will be ready in 6 mos. The black ops here have been developing AI which is a hair away from totally thinking for itself. That's what's known outside DARPA.

I hope this is satire, because that's all fiction. All Neuralink has managed is to torture a load of monkeys to death, Musk has a long history of just making stuff up to suit his business interests. While the field of machine learning is a very interesting and fast-moving one I don't think any serious researcher really thinks we're remotely close to  classical sentience. This is why the name "AI" is fairly crass and childish - machine learning models don't think at the moment, they're not intelligent. They're statistical systems that do a large number of calculations with pre-prepared "learned" probability data to deterministically transform a set of input data to a set of output data. It's an under-representation of their complexity and power to compare them directly to a photoeditor filter, but they "think" about as much as one.

(That "pre-prepared probability data" is the bit that's a current ethical discussion around art - the big-name image-generation ML projects have all been trained on large  collections of artworks harvested off of sites like ArtStation or DeviantArt without even notifying the artists who made them, let alone asking permission, and in some cases to the degree that the ML model can spit out a convincing facsimile if prompted to.)

I don't doubt that if humanity manages to not kill ourselves off for long enough we'll eventually attain sentient, sapient, intelligent AI - the human brain is just a big chemical-electrical system, after all - but "the singularity" doesn't just require that, it also requires sentient AI that's intelligent and capable enough to design a new generation of sentient AI that's even more intelligent and capable than itself, which would hypothetically lead to a rapid exponential increase in AI capability. And there's a huge gap between "sentient" - something we can say of cats and dogs - and "intelligent enough to design and implement a new mind more intelligent than itself", which is something we can't even yet say of humans.

[Alfred]

1 hour ago, JakeStaines said:

This is why the name "AI" is fairly crass and childish - machine learning models don't think at the moment, they're not intelligent.

The name “AI” doesn’t strike me as even remotely childish. It literally stands for “Artificial Intelligence”, as distinct from real intelligence: that’s what the Turing Test is all about.

[William Overington]

I know that sometimes when I log onto a Windows 10 computer I get shown a picture and I am asked to choose whether I like it or not. The next picture shown might perhaps take that opinion and maybe my choice of the two options for earlier pictures into account.

If that were extended to several questions each with a scale of 0 to 10, and a picture shown each day, how long would it be before the system could present me with pictures that it deems that I would like?

Yet wait! What if the answers I give seem inconsistent, yet in fact vary wit my feelings at the time as human feelings can vary in time based on factors the system does not know about.

So how can it choose, or generate, a picture to match my choices?

William

 

[firstdefence]

3 hours ago, William Overington said:

I know that sometimes when I log onto a Windows 10 computer I get shown a picture and I am asked to choose whether I like it or not. The next picture shown might perhaps take that opinion and maybe my choice of the two options for earlier pictures into account.

If that were extended to several questions each with a scale of 0 to 10, and a picture shown each day, how long would it be before the system could present me with pictures that it deems that I would like?

Yet wait! What if the answers I give seem inconsistent, yet in fact vary wit my feelings at the time as human feelings can vary in time based on factors the system does not know about.

So how can it choose, or generate, a picture to match my choices?

William

 

Maybe it can use observation using the camera to look at your facial expressions, notice your unconscious reflex actions, use NLP and based on a few other things like the mic being used to listening to your conversation. Have you never noticed that what you talk about results in associated posts, quizzes and ads on such as facebook, instagram etc.

[thomaso]

4 hours ago, Alfred said:

The name “AI” doesn’t strike me as even remotely childish. It literally stands for “Artificial Intelligence”, as distinct from real intelligence: that’s what the Turing Test is all about.

1 hour ago, firstdefence said:

Maybe it can use observation using the camera to look at your facial expressions, notice your unconscious reflex actions, use NLP and based on a few other things

As long as AI is defined, developed, trained and assessed by human intelligence, it will hardly achieve, increase or even generally be sufficient – just as we will hardly ever be convinced that humans have become too intelligent for this world. It always depends on individual goals, values and expectations of economic benefit. It appears ironically that people define intelligence as the ability to solve problems although it is also intelligence which causes problems.

While nowadays AI can be involved in recruitment tasks to select human "resources" (e.g. judge people with a bookshelf background / glasses / headscarf different from those without such items) …

... in November 2021, New York City decided to restrict the use of AI and require regular proof of AI by human intelligence. Isn't it strange that people can often trust their pets more easily than humans because they create an idea of limited intelligence in animals?

https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/nyc-ai-hiring-tools

Quote

The bill is intended to weed out the use of tools that enable already unlawful employment discrimination in New York City. If signed into law, it will require providers of automated employment decision tools to have those systems evaluated each year by an audit service and provide the results to companies using those systems.

AI for recruitment can include software that uses machine learning to sift through resumes and help make hiring decisions, systems that attempt to decipher the sentiments of a job candidate, or even tech involving games to pick up on subtle clues about someone's hiring worthiness. The NYC bill attempts to encompass the full gamut of AI by covering everything from old-school decision trees to more complex systems operating through neural networks.

[debraspicher]

It seems like there's more hype around AI than are signs that are indicative of its complete takeover. I just don't think about it, honestly. The only concerns I have are merely ethical. If people use it in their work, it doesn't bother me. If I have to change the way I market in the future, so be it.

[nickbatz]

Techbro incels trying to replace the soul of humanity with algorithmic garbage.

Other than that I'm all for it.

[VIPStephan]

On 12/16/2022 at 7:26 PM, debraspicher said:

It seems like there's more hype around AI than are signs that are indicative of its complete takeover. I just don't think about it, honestly. The only concerns I have are merely ethical. If people use it in their work, it doesn't bother me. If I have to change the way I market in the future, so be it.

Yeah, I kind of agree. In terms of “AI art” I guess it depends on the purpose for which it is used – it’s like any craft that has been made mostly obsolete by machines: for the ignorant mass market, machine-created things are sufficient; but you can still get hand crafted things if you really want. You can compare it to artificial meat that has been created in a laboratory: such meat will be used in burgers and other processed food where it doesn’t matter to most people what’s in there but you won’t see it as “real” steak on a plate anytime soon.