it's impossible to answer to this line of reasoning without wasting time so I'll just start right away with the ad hominem.
you just don't like art, you don't understand it and you want slop, admit it and don't feel compelled to enter the discussion with your growth oriented bullshit mindset
Literally this. Ben hits the nail on the head that these tools can “write convincing Elizabethan language but can’t write Shakespeare”, along with his metaphor about craftsmen vs artists.
These tools can never create art because art is the imperfection of reality transposed from the mind’s eye using the talent of the artisan and their tools. Writing a convincing enough prompt to generate an assortment of visual outputs that you “choose” as the final product can never be art, because your art skills ended with the prompt itself - everything after was just maths, and not even maths you had a direct hand in. Even then, you cannot really shill your prompt as art either, because you wrote tokens to ingest into a LLM to generate pseudorandom visual outputs, not language to be interpreted by other humans and visualized on their own accord.
Art is one of those things you cannot appreciate until you make it, and generating slop is not creating art. A preschooler with a single, broken crayon and a napkin makes better art than anything generated via tokens and math models - and to really drive that home, I’d argue that the teenager goofing around with math formulas on their graphing calculator to create visually beautiful or interesting designs is also superior art than whatever the LLM can spew forth using far more advanced maths.
If you really want art, then make it. Learn to draw, practice photography, paint some scenery, experiment with formula visualizations, layout a garden, or heck, just commission an artist to bring your idea into reality. Learning to articulate your vision with language in such a way others can illustrate or create it is a far more valuable skill than laying out tokens for an LLM.
I never created a movie. I can appreciate a good one over a bad one (Argo, Gigli).
Statistically speaking, the number of people who have created a movie rounds to zero. And yet, to suggest basically no one appreciates a movie or the difference between a good movie and a bad one is obviously very dumb.
You're conflating the reality of the situation with me. I didn't say I wanted AI generated content. Just that it seems like it will inevitably win. All the insults in your comment just stem from an imaginary and inaccurate picture of me, a stranger, that you created in your head.
> don't feel compelled to enter the discussion with your growth oriented bullshit mindset
Alice, an incessant painter with passion for it but zero natural talent, learns about stable diffusion. She teaches herself how to use this new tool and creates imagery she never could before. She tweaks settings and prompts, iterates for hours, and ultimately generates imagery she is pleased with. She shares this creation with others and many of them appreciate what she has created.
Except Bob. Bob looks at the imagery and, thanks to his up to date technical knowledge, recognizes that the work may be generated. So Bob rejects the imagery, he refuses to allow it to affect him at all. He insults it, calls it slop, insists it cannot be art, insults Alice, and insults the people who were moved by Alice's work.
If one of these two people "doesn't like art" and "doesn't understand it," which one is it more likely to be: the one who is creating, or the one who is criticizing the creation?
Plenty of mass media are just uninspired derivatives. It seems to entertain a lot of people. I see AI can take care of the mind numbing work of making uninspired bullshit so real creatives can be freed to pursue actual, meaningful art.
Lots of people will lose jobs working on stupid bullshit, of course. That is an economic issue, not a technology issue.
US is a two-party system. At best you can vote for the lesser evil. Or vote independent, but that's mostly a lost vote. Or not vote at all. How can an individual absolve themselves of this guilt?
the second link you pasted is a study made by economists, not real scientists, strike that.
The first one you really didn't read, did you? "In contrast to received wisdom regarding testosterone and risk, the present data provide the first robust evidence for a nonlinear association between economic preferences and levels of endogenous testosterone."
"Despite the common view that high testosterone levels lead to risky decisions across numerous domains, we found that testosterone has a quadratic relationship with economic risk preferences: Individuals with low and high levels of testosterone (within their gender) were risk and ambiguity neutral, whereas individuals with intermediate levels of testosterone were risk and ambiguity averse."
> the second link you pasted is a study made by economists, not real scientists, strike that.
I find it funny how you're willing to offhandedly dismiss a paper because "economists, not real scientists", but seemingly have no problems with the field psychology which had the replication crisis and "experiment on a bunch of freshmen psychology students and extrapolate to the whole population" studies.
Economy and psychology aren't too dissimilar when it comes to being "real" science. People can think whatever they want about genders, dismissing hormones is a bit harder, especially when people fight to get said hormones to affirm their gender, if it was all "the same" and interchangeable it wouldn't be the case
I've been surgically modified such that my body doesn't produce sex hormones in any significant quantity on its own. As a substitute, I use separate transdermal gels containing testosterone and estrogen, which have relatively short metabolic half life in my body.
I normally target an estrogen level similar to an average woman and a testosterone level between the female and male reference ranges. I'm able to adjust the mix on the order of days when it suits me, and there absolutely is a difference. People who know me well can usually tell what mix I'm running.
I'm going to assume bad faith because the alternative would be to rude to you.
If you wanted to paint a photorealistic halle berry having sex with whomevere you'd need years if not decades of art training. Or shelling a minimum of 500$ to commission an artist. Now I can have 25 different jpgs of that mental image in less than a hour of "work". And no you don't even have to write that piece of software, it's already online for free.
If you don't see ho this is a new problem you should log off
>Random photos without context will just lose their value as gossip evidence. Who cares.
You answered your own question. If generative AI means that no one trusts any evidence and calls everything fake, that's a huge societal problem. We've already seen a certain subset of the population claiming that since 2016 with disastrous results (how do you convince someone who dismisses all evidence out of hand?)
About not blindly trusting photos, that ship has sailed. The tools exist. Have existed long before generative AI. Are accessible. Do not require very much "talent". That's done. You can't blindly trust photos. When you get a photo or a few photos - be it in a scientific paper or a tabloid web site - you can ask yourself whether it makes sense. You can consider the context. Generative AI does not change that.
I strongly disagree. There is a huge difference between "photos can theoretically be faked, we need to consult an expert" and "everyone I know is using meme generators to post pictures of themselves in historical events, nothing is believable" in terms of societal trust.
I disagree with your disagreement. Pandora’s box has been opened a while ago. There is nothing we, as a society, can do to reverse that.
Either you waste time discussing how that’s a bad thing, or accept the premise that pictures aren’t inherently trustworthy ways to convey information anymore, period.
Perhaps an example helps. And then I'll agree to disagree :-)
If you are, 6 months ago, before generative AI, an exec or HR person and you spot on the web, or are helpfully sent, 2 photos of your cherished spokesperson having a great time at a nazi campout. Then what? Well, you better think a few cycles before firing that spokesperson. It may well be real, it may well be Photoshop.
Generative AI does not change that issue. Eventually it will make it easier to generate that content, not yet. But you are still making a decision that matters on the basis of very manageable labor. More manageable than before does not change the importance of the decision you have to make. Many will make that decision without considering it but it's more a question of awareness or care than means, no?
IDK what's so fun about it man. We used to think that agreements between users and providers were binding. That they were stronger than good faith. US law is based on that, I think. Everything that's not based in Europe is fucked and it's not even remotely fun.
This behavior of "user says he wants to delete the data, company says it deleted it, but they actually haven't" has happened so many times just in my life time. What's so funny about it is that some people STILL haven't learned their lesson.
I learned the lesson the very first time I've seen it happen.
Well, it's not public utility. A founder created the subreddit and a team of mods manage it to make it usable for you. Brooklyn and all other subs you use would be radically different with a different team of mods
reply