The kind of "AI cope" you're talking about sounds like further proletarianisation. While I'm in agreement with you about the artificial enclosure of digital commodities as "intellectual property" and this being a positive development, I think a more salient AI cope is the geopolitical dimension, the heavily financialised economies in the imperial core countries having lost their edge in pretty much everything pinning their hopes on their ostensible lead in this technology
I for one embrace the AI hivemind because i cant handle personal responsibility so it would be easier to handle collective responsibility where i am nothing but a tool for a extremely powerful machine god.
AI isn't going to replace menial labor, it's just gonna shift it around a bit
some human still has to make sure the machine doesn't accidentally think a banana is an apple or whatever
Read Theses on the Philosophy of History and stop being a Elon Musk
I thought for sure that would wordfilter to cringe retard
I have a decent-enough PC. Someone give me a guide on how to run one of these AI art generators on my computer. I'll just feed it Soviet and other communist imagery, then we'll be able to make art that isn't ruined by liberals and filters. Most free ones online have word filters now.
>>1633438>Someone give me a guide on how to run one of these AI art generators on my computer
Look them up, they'll have specs and installation guides. I don't keep up with this crap.> I'll just feed it Soviet and other communist imagery
Have fun finding decent enough high-quality training data…….
I think the AI evangelists are basically the worst representatives of this technology and by now many are kind of repulsed and disgusted by SV, its culture, and its economic model, and basically everything about it.
But AI is just a very useful technology that will continue to develop and find new applications.
Unfortunately, I think that many of the rules that have put in place (like, and don't hate, data privacy rules) may mean that this technology becomes monopolized by a small number of companies.
The way that AI is going to develop is unfortunately going to be very annoying and advantage the wrong people. But it is going to develop and its better to embrace it rather than reject it.
>>1633473>But AI is just a very useful technology
eh, machine learning can
be a useful technology. That's an important distinction. There are legitimate use-cases, but the main ones getting attention, just like with blockchain and IoT before it, are gimmicky. Like you said, "very annoying and advantage the wrong people".
Capitalism doesn't do what benefits society, it does what it believes will make money. As always, with most technology, the problem isn't the tool, but how it is used.
I dont' agree here. It's not gimmicky. I use GPT-4 all the time and now I use the photo version a lot. It is a hugely flexible and adaptable tool for almost any task you can apply a computer to solving. It's much different than blockchain which just a weird kind of database.
To repeat, I am aware there are legitimate use-cases, but most of the ones getting attention are gimmicky. An important aspect of this is abuse
of the tools, misguidedly trusting them to do things they shouldn't be trusted to do. Like the shitposter a couple of days ago who was using ChatGPT to summarize books and pretended they were reading those books by reading the semantically-generated summaries.
>indistinguishable from the average ancap libertarian boomer that cries about “small businesses"
artists unlike small business owners are not even aspiring to be bourgeois. the rent-seeking they do is necessary to secure a coherent income under our current mode of production… it seems common for people on this board to take a one-sided view of intellectual property (under capitalism specifically), and they often lapse into commodity fetishism in process (e.g. "oh well when i download something, my computer automatically reorganizes itself so i can utilize the software" - confusingly disregarding the labor which was needed to write the software at this level analysis). i am not even talking about ai here necessary but also stuff like piracy (actually this stuff has been on my mind before current ai stuff). my problem is not with pirating things (personally if i didn't pirate a bunch of books and articles id be bankrupt lol) but trying to construe it as some moral thing one way or the other when this just amounts to some abstract lifestylism. the overall issue is that in attacking intellectual property, one merely focuses on the symptom, rather than the cause…
>AI absolutely destroying the value of digital commodities should be pretty positive for the burgeoning anti-capitalist
proles being more downtrodden might also be from a broader point of view, a positive too. however, it's dumb to expect the average person to just sit down and accept losing their job because of some abstract progress especially when it is a job they have invested a lot of time into and they extract a lot of value from doing. maybe they are being short-sighted, but calling people digital landlords or whatever is just needlessly inflammatory. at the same time i don't think i've really seen anyone speak out against stuff like ai art from an explicitly marxist perspective? talking about stuff like "theft" is really a manifestation of the issue i mentioned above… the digital in some ways purifies our relation to value as the object of exchange slowly dissolves between our fingers. nevertheless, we want to somehow keep tabs on the labor power that has gone into the digital world somehow… this makes it more difficult in the case of ai because picks up on an amalgamation of causal contributions from a multitude of artists
i've been avoiding talking about ai art for a while because there is something in it i simply find repulsive, however, as i was writing this post some maybe interesting ontological insights came to me. an insight i had made about ai specifically before was that it does not do any abstracting (which would be an infinite process), rather a model is
abstraction. there is a rigid identity between ideality and actuality (provided we control the conditions in which the system is implemented of course). meanwhile, humans are capable of abstracting. this is a pre-condition from abstraction. to put in less esoteric terms, humans make models, while a transformer is a model
. something to note is that not only ai, but general automation is also another form of abstraction
something else i have talked about before is the fact that labour is a process whereby duration is delineated (see stanisław brzozowski). this idea is sort of attractive because it really focuses on time, and gestures at further possibilities as to why humans produce value (etc the creativity that resides within our time-extended actions). something else is that it also gives some idea of what it means for art to be "sovl" vs "sovlless" ironically enough. if our souls are incarnations of time itself, then something automated lacks sovl just by virtue of it not being a time-extended indivisible process done by a human, but a rather (intelligible as) divisible process done by a machine or a human heavily relying on the intellect… there are some metaphysically and ontologically loaded ideas here which idk if i should put too much energy into defending. there are of course many ways to perhaps render these ideas more exoteric whatever… the first is just to interpret "duration" as this sort of subjective time… to me i don't like this because it is too phenomenological, but whatever. a second approach would be to bring it back to the general (+ more "spatial"?) dialectical structure of life itself. the object of labor is itself a product of the process of abstracting. so the object is an abstraction like the ai is. then we could say that sovl is a product of abstracting rather than abstraction
the more vitalist framing of things is still interesting because it can be an interesting nomological framing of the issue. on one side, you have the "vital order" of humanity, and on the other the "cybernetic order" of automation (incidentally, we also have perhaps some parallels between the separation of causal and logical orders posited by negarestani. not only should practical autonomy be separated from logical autonomy, but we should probably not understand it as having its foot purely in the field of the logical order… in particular with the declarative speech act, we have a picking up of a phenomenon that was merely in the causal order into the logical one). with the progression of automation, the cybernetic order picks up delineations from the vital order into itself so that it progressively swells up. at the same time the vital order can always consume parts of the cybernetic order (in particular the products of finite cybernetic processes). so there is a dialectical relationship here…
now for the insight i just had now. the framing i just made concerning the causal contributions of the power from individual digital artists unto the larger system ties into this. the problem is not that ai steals, but that this dialectic between the vital and cybernetic is not integrated into incentive structures in a rational fashion. the creativity of art comes from real understanding of reality, then reinterpreting and reconfiguring shapes and forms around this understanding. they aren't just spitting out arbitrary amalgams of visual data. there is a far more coherent interpenetration of elements, and part of illustration and painting is this active problem-solving on paper
. an art style is almost a sort of a time-extended visual rhythm… one that is itself just an abstraction out of a broader amodal rhythm of interpenetrating elements through which novel patterns emerge. then this visual rhythm is then taken up into the cybernetic order and further "regularized" (it is made more schematic, and the problem-solving element is abstracted away)… in the process the cybernetic swells up in even more
the real issue is that when this process is established, then the power of a single artwork should have been radically augmented, and their value further reconfigured. the artwork is not simply valuable because it is a new artwork for people to consume in some simple way, but rather it now has the value of contributing more patterns and idealizations to the cybernetic order. it is strange, because in a sense the soul is revealed to have an even more practical importance than before in a way
something i've seen talked about is how the benefit of ai is that it "democratizes art" or "unleashes creativity for the masses" (see for instance here: >>1610042 – also ugh this idea that people who can't draw or whatever simply lack "talent" is so gross and completely ignores the process of learning to draw that involves not only a development of hand-eye coordination, but also a developing understanding of both the visual field and the visual world as well). to me i think this is muddle-headed and is taking a perspective on ai that is not from the perspective of production (i think the broader idea that ai is just another tool also sort of misses this point, or at the very least often fails to articulate for who is it a tool for and in what way… in reality most uses of ai just amounts to just using it to generate the entire piece, though there may perhaps be genuine uses of it as a tool in the same way that google search is also a tool? again though, we seldom actually see this in reality, and the soteriological rhetoric of ai can't help but oscillate between the aggressive insistence that human artists will be replaced, or that it is simply "just a tool"). it completely misses the crucial dialectical relationship mentioned above. moreover in practice a lot of ai art just amounts to a sort "visual idle talk". it is weird but it is sort of making me think of heidegger here. the ai can give you a bunch of collages, but it it is unable to develop its own styles or visual motifs. it is also only affords so much precision in use as >>1633166
mentions. as has been said many times, prompting is more like commissioning rather than creating something yourself… when you prompt, you ask for something and u expect to basically get what you want. sure there is some fiddling around with the prompts but this is nothing like the progressive problem-solving one does in illustration or painting. with this in mind, there is a vast array of visual possibility that just doesn't get explored when one is prompting. that takes us to another point… another thing people say is that this ai is truly creative, but i think this is also wrong-headed. as a model, it is an abstraction. hence we are really talking here about an incarnated subsection of the platonic forms. all the possibilities it is capable of producing are already there in the model, just in a compressed form. what we have here is discovery, not invention (to go a bit meta here, it is interesting how we see an instance where the discussion about the ontology of mathematics and whether it is discovered or invented takes a far more concrete form)… i do agree with the idea that generative ai is in some sense a sort of manifestation of collective human mentality, but all of this points out the limits of jungian psychodynamics, reductive sociology, and many forms of idealism (e.g. the analytic idealism which seems to elevate archetypes over human agency)
i see conversation people make about what is the nature of art, but i think this is very misleading. with duchamp et al., the meaning of art basically devolves to "communicates something sort of to other humans". maybe this is true. but it is also true that anyone can be an idea guy. i think the problem partly comes from the fact that it discounts the role of the artist in all of this… it might also tie into object oriented ontology (which i honestly don't think much of) as well idk. really the ontology of art is imo irrelevant
so what does any of this mean economically? i think one thing we should incentivize artists to constantly reinvent themselves and to continually develop the cybernetic order… going back to the idea of "soul", there is this idea when you pay for an artwork, you are really paying for the time it took for the artist to perfect their craft. i think this statement is so correct that it is even prognostic. what ai highlights is the necessity to rethink visual art as an active research program and work-in-progress. this techno-ecological role of the artist may become more and more salient in the future. ive been privately mulling over an extension of cybernetic socialism that takes semantic information and automation into account and im sort of thinking about how this sort of integrates into that broader framework too
uhh, so there's that. here are some links that sort of articulate some of the stuff i am thinking about more:>http://web.archive.org/web/20220320072021/https://leftypol.org/leftypol/res/857172.html >http://web.archive.org/web/20230425060135/https://leftypol.org/leftypol/res/1443710.html#1444678>http://web.archive.org/web/20230502072604/https://leftypol.org/leftypol/res/1449574.html#1450627>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5Rl7D5SNJk&ab_channel=CommunistPartyofGreatBritain>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6o_7HeowY8&ab_channel=FrittOrd (i don't care so much about searle's talk here as much as i do luciano floridi's)>>1633155
you make it seem as though this technology is just going to remove all these bullshit jobs instead of also creating new ones like prompt engineer or whatever to take their place (in the middle of writing the above rant someone pointed this out already >>1633479
tho ofc if neurosymbolic ai gets developed maybe the ai becomes more reliable but that is then assuming capitalists are not just going to chase after new fads rather than cool-headed quality control). i think we are overestimating the rationality of capitalism here…>>1633205>Theses on the Philosophy of History
why is this relevant anon? pardon my ignorance>>1633161
idk i prefer an open society (idgaf popper's liberalism, i mean more bergson and deleuze's ideals) than just leaving everything to one totalitarian system. i can't rlly trust it. even if i could, it seems to go against the project of making human autonomy actual
AI isn't real.
>>1633470>Have fun finding decent enough high-quality training data…….
That's where you come in, comrade. They can be crowd-sourced.
With all due respect, I have more pressing things to attend to. I just got done tagging a thousand images.
Consider using existing open tagged data collections and filtering all the socialist stuff from them. Seems like a good safe approach if you can find the data and have the disk space to process it.
Keep fantasising about AI
Like a year ago, people argued that AI will never replace artists because it generated weird hands and supposedly lacks creativity.
It's really just the West and it can't get fucked soon enough. t. Westoid.
Ironically, AI will replace art work tho.
>"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man's mind."
Orange Catholic Bible
>>1633164>it's just gonna shift it around a bit
due to the nature of capitalism, yes. under socialism this would be a net good
lesswrongers are fucking retarded
>>1633129>AI cope will go down as one of the largest online mass copes ever. I do think it’s very funny that typical “anti-capitalists” are now ideologically indistinguishable from the average ancap libertarian boomer that cries about “small businesses", which is kinda insane because AI absolutely destroying the value of digital commodities should be pretty positive for the burgeoning anti-capitalist.
I genuinely have no fucking clue wtf you're on about…I can only assume my level of extremely online is no match for your own, anon
It's not about not being online, you just don't read.
It's the liberal version of the CCRU and it's filled with cultist imbeciles. They're the ones who came up with trash like Roko's Basilisk.
>>1633129> do think it’s very funny that typical “anti-capitalists” are now ideologically indistinguishable from the average ancap libertarian boomer
Both fundamentally assume capitalism as eternal law of nature. The former one just expects that one day everybody in the world rises up spontaneously and then something mysterious called the revolution happens and we no longer have capitalism and world is then perfect.
Not entirely. Its just gonna simplify the process most likely
>>1633894>"AI" is nothing more than large language models and a glorified auto complete
at the time frame https://youtu.be/qrvK_KuIeJk?t=497
nothing about that demonstrates its more than a highly complex language model
>>1633894>And not to mention in addition of internet bots mixed with AI it's also having the effect of making the internet basically unusable
It's making search engines and centralized social media unusable, but fedi and developing your bookmark management skills fixes that for the most part.
Which part of what he said along the lines of "its not simply a dumb language model as common folk with no expertise claim" did you not understand
I might be simplistic here but ai art doesnt destroy art itself. It does destroy making a living out of art though.
I mean, candle making is pretty dead (discounting smoll 1-person companies qho carther to "real thing") because candles are easy to mass produce but folk does make candles anyway.
True. Current 'AI' is just a very advanced statistical model.
That's all it ever will be. It's mimicry and calculation, nothing more.
i understood his words but he provided no counter explanation of what it actually is. im not saying its a "dumb" language model, im saying its an extremely advanced machine learning language model. thats still not anywhere close to something that has the self-consciousness to "understand", its a black box where input is sorted and arranged into output, and that processing does not involve actual awareness of any kind
>>1633669>liberal version of the CCRU
thats a pretty accurate analogy lol
whether its just a glorified autocomplete or actually sentient with emergent capabilities (it obviously isnt, but for the sake of the argument..) is pretty irrelevant to what most of the thread is actually discussing…..
anyway most of the criticism against ai itself rather than its use under capitalism is liberal at best and downright emotional and reactionary at worst
So is human intelligence.
I don't say this to pretend 'AI' isn't a shitty marketing term,
but to point out that your statement doesn't actually provide meaning in this conversation. Like saying 'WiFi is just an advanced radio communication'. So what?
ai art is fun and based, twatter artists can seethe and kill themselves.
why couldn't he just be nice to her?
consciousness isn't real either, we are all just walking statistical models
The mechanism that makes us intelligent, isn't the same one used by current AI. We probably will be able to replicate it in digital form one day, but this will be a completly different invention, instead of a more advanced form of current AI models.
Humans aren't born as tabula rasa. There are already certain already existing connection that are specific to humans and learning in the brain of a newborn. it's still nothing unique or unachievable by AI.
wtf is "socialism" here exactly? is it a system of magic?
Just learn to code bru-ACK… Oh wait ! AI can code also now ? ITS OVER HUH ?
AI can't code though, it can only kind of generate plausible seeming code that it knows from online, there's no guarantee if it will actually work
How long till it codes and code broos have to start flipping burgers to make a living.. flip those burgers wagie… OOOHH YEAAAHHH
You don't get it anon, the corporations have to get some sort of super-duper-copyright-v2.0 so that poor aspiring artists living off the most pathological forms of artistic commission don't get automated by AI !
Also, reminder that all this fawning over AI is sure to be used in the renewal of the Mickey Mouse Copyright Protection Act, which is due for 2024.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act>Mickey Mouse specifically, having first appeared in 1928 in Steamboat Willie, will enter the public domain in 2024
Yuuuup. When posting this to artists being hysterical about AI art, they tell me this is "preferable to AI completely destroying the industry". Fucking stupid.https://reason.com/2023/01/19/dont-let-disney-monopolize-a-i-generated-art/
when you definitely know about information theory
I ran into GPT failing to write correct SQL again, this time with GPT-4. I think that's enough work for today.
all those 'why are you poor? just learn to code' smuggies loosing their jobs would be so funny
good. Mars needs more genetic material for the breeding chambers
what the fuck is that meme
whats the source
I apologize I don’t have a full hour to watch this video, but if I could just say I think “Machine Learning” and “AI” can be sort of disambiguated at this point. Machine learning can refer to something like an LLM, while AI is indeed emerging as a sort of gestalt of higher level abstractions, that is use of underlying models as black boxes to emulate reasoning or problem solving and other higher order cognitive functions. Basically they are emulations of cognitive processes by design. It’s kind of like reducing a CPU to just a bunch of AND gates and inverters. Yes, it IS that. And it is meaningful to understand them that way. But at the same time we have created complex structures out of them which can preform very advanced tasks that combined together form complete systems and create new concepts and need new vocabulary.
Digital commodities were already devalued thanks to the advertisement-supported freeware business model. People were tricked into generating revenue for tech companies for free.
absolutely based. if you arent using ai to make your job easier wtf are you doing
guys our technology is so powerful it's dangerous. guys it's just that powerful that it's actually bad. did you hear our technology is dangerous because of how powerful it is, and I'm not just saying that as marketing
youre a fucking idiot lol
If it keeps fucking up make sure you begin a new convo. Something in the prompt is causing it to sample a wrong token and your past response is being put into the prompt. IME it's best to let it do 80% of the work and don't try and fight it to get that last 20% right. It's too autistic.
Its easy to meme about the "just learn to code, you flyover state bigot!" getting their just desserts because the jobs being automated away aren't just blue collar or baseline white collar tasks like data entry, but actually threatens their coding job or the already tenuous value of their liberal and/or fine arts degrees. However, there's a much bigger issue at hand, but before we get to that I will touch on one element of the above I see as danger.
Watching a cadre of online artists protest AI with such vigor is disappointing for many reasons. Ultimately it comes down to the same automation argument that any factory worker could make - fear that it will take or have a negative impact on their job in some regard- but in some ways its worse because it distorts the nature of how the AI systems work. Their demands that any creative endeavor or media needs to have a "NO AI MAY LOOK AT ME" flag is predicated on the AI being somehow different than how a human goes about learning and creating or replicating from past experience, which is inaccurate. The AI is non-deterministic, it simply takes all its past experiences, and then draws from them to produce whatever is queried, much like a person - it simply does it faster. The majority of these artists on social media crying about needing an AI blocker embedded in their work learned to draw (or paint, model etc) by learning techniques by replicating others' work and styles. From commonplace still life (bowl of fruit etc) and live model exercises to attempting to replicate the works of the old masters to adopting the style of favorite comic or manga authors, imagine if the first time that person who would go onto trying to take patreon commissions wanted to learn to draw they opened their favorite manga file to find that after a few seconds on a page it blacked out with a "artistic study not granted! You are spending too long on this one page and therefore our system has detected you may be trying to study, copy, trace, or otherwise make a derivative work and the author does not grant you this in the license" message , possibly with a "If you'd like to purchase a temporary artistic study license at the cost of $50 per image, please click here and have your payment information ready". This would be preposterous, but it is exactly this that artists seem to demand of AI platforms that "learn' in much the same way as humans do!
This brings me to the crux of the issue is that in their fear that AI may threaten their commission income, they are aligning themselves with megacorps and the content cartels to implement policy that will be more expensive, more restrictive, and more harmful to open culture. ChatGPT , DALL-E , and other for profit proprietary AI platforms would be happy for a world where they, empowered by the subscription fees of everyone to access their proprietary API, improved more and more with every request of their users, would say they're the "friend" to artists and advocate for laws demanding AI licensing restrictions and fees. They can afford to pay for each use of each item in their database, like a megacorp buying access to tons of stock photos for their usage, but this puts the use of AI and training data out of everyone elses' hands who cannot do so. That's part of the threat - its similar Big Tech fostering onerous requirements that make a massive impediment any others from growing to challenge the incumbents. Thus, for both logical/practical and ideological outcomes the demand to have a "no AI/LLM/Machine learning may not look at thing" flag is harmful. Instead, we need to foster developments that make the benefits of AI (and all the vernacular related to it) available widely within society.
While this in part will require regulation (especially if meant to do anything for the public good or on the public dollar MUST be both open source/spec as well as its training data. If you're going to assess the potential for garbage in / garbage out situations, you can't have corpos hiding behind trade secrets on the inputs ), the overall theme should be that ALL models , spec, and training data formats should be open source/libre. Right now, outside of Stable Diffusion which is FOSS/libre and we see all the great benefits thereof, all the other "top tier" AI is proprietary, software as a service. ChatGPT and DALL-E, Elevenlabs voice cloning and others all use proprietary services when you access through API -you can't host it yourself, but every input you provide goes to improving their model. They eventually start charging more for access, sanitizing/censoring outputs, and otherwise ending up with restrictions as soon as they think they're "good enough" to justify it and people will pay. We need to get away from this, because that's a huge amount of data going to train secret, proprietary algos that will soon be used as authoritative or otherwise ahead of other offerings There's a lot more to the discussion, but but ultimately either AI will end up run by a handful of megacorps with huge amounts of assets be it fiscal and hardware or training data to their proprietary benefit, or it will be something openly usable widely for all who choose to and build upon collective work for collective benefit.
>>1633666>you just don't read
ok, can you please explain what you mean in the op then?
>>1633129>I do think it’s very funny that typical “anti-capitalists” are now ideologically indistinguishable from the average ancap libertarian boomer that cries about “small businesses",
anti small business leftists sound like neo libs larping as a ceo
>>1639258>anti small business leftists
yes, small businesses should go bankrupt
I'm not OP, but the only remotely "le terminally online" term there is "cope", which someone who uses "anon" should have no issues understanding. Everything else is literally just marxist jargon.
Muh ma and pa stores. ;_;
All private enterprise is a cancer
and he is giving no counterargument whatsoever to the objections raised about it being simply a powerful machine learning language model far short of any kind of awareness, instead he just does pure sophistry and showmanship
I meant more the part with:>I do think it’s very funny that typical “anti-capitalists” are now ideologically indistinguishable from the average ancap libertarian boomer that cries about “small businesses", which is kinda insane because AI absolutely destroying the value of digital commodities should be pretty positive for the burgeoning anti-capitalist.
What have "anti-capitalists" said? Which ones? How does it make them indistinguishable from ancaps? Why would the devaluing of digital commodities be positive?
I didn't even know these conversations were happening, which tells me it's just more conversations being had online then anything of substance for the real world. But I may be wrong.
Since most socialists believe planned economy is inefficient now, there has been a certain reaction to this by people who don't know the field that advocate for an AI planned economy. Planned economy is the only way to achieve socialism which for all we know may be the only realistic Marxist model. For all we know, Marx could have just set communism as an asymptotic goal that is never to be fully reached. But socialism can be. Not if it turns out planned economy is less efficient than a market one though. The only hope we have left is that these socialists are delusional and it's all USA propaganda
Petty bourgeois worm learns that working class people don't give a shit about his smol business.
You will be crushed by big capital and rentseekers and receive no pity from us because you are also an exploiter. Clear?
Gorbachev "socialism" while revisionist is still miles better than what followed and his economy was way less oppressive than China and Vietnam's are today
>>1639258>anti small business leftists
won't someone please think of the petty porkies
to oppose the concentration of capital is historically regressive. all antitrust legislation should be abolished>>1639628
imagine knowing the Russian Federation exists and saying this
>>1639638>imagine knowing the Russian Federation exists and saying this
Yes? He was way way way way better than Boris
i still am not gonna take a side in your inter-bourgeois slapfights lmao
it seems no one has bothered reading >>1633510
so i will take this post as an opportunity to underscore and contextualize a few points
>down to the same automation argument that any factory worker could make - fear that it will take or have a negative impact on their job in some regard
the analogy is rather shallow. perhaps there is an element of some vulgar luddism (which ultimately is not something that should be responded to with ridicule in the first place as it is often done), but there is more at stake here. really what matters are the conditions of possibility for ai in the first place. the effectiveness of artificial intelligence is contingent on training data, and this is data ultimately sources from human artists. for some reason, when it comes to data people here don't seem to be able to think about it in a very clear manner, focusing merely on the reproducibility of the data by other machines as opposed to its essential ingredient viz. human action. it is strange because if i were to say that places like youtube and google are not at all free services because they are tracking and selling this data, people have no problem agreeing… it is clear phrased this way that data isn't free, and there is a demand for us to think about its ethical usage and circulation. however, in this specific case of digital art, these points are strangely forgotten for whatever reason. even ignoring this angle, there is also the fact that generative ai is not perfect, and it is definitely still a work in progress. the extraction of artwork as a means to improve this ai is still an ongoing process. here is the key point of disanalogy. the artist is expected to contribute to this process of automation with no expectation of compensation whatsoever, despite the fact that they continue to make contributions to the overall project of artificial intelligence
>The AI is non-deterministic, it simply takes all its past experiences, and then draws from them to produce whatever is queried, much like a person - it simply does it faster
with that pointed out, we see that the saliency of the claim that ai is creative just like human artists starts to come into question. we can further expand the disanalogy from here:
1) (crucial) the ai is not a person whatsoever. it does not have autonomy. it can not set out to embark on its own projects. it is something that is owned by someone else. any attempts to try and compare it to a person are extremely dangerous, as they lend credit to attempts to lend these non-sapient machines personhood. this would be a tragic error, as it basically absolves the people who actually own and work on this technology from all liability. the ai is ultimately a prosthesis for entities that do have self-legislative capacities, and the real arena of contradiction has them as a main ingredient (and not the ai)… an artificial intelligence is not simply some self-sufficient entity, rather it is a project that is embarked by certain people using the information painstakingly fashioned by others. ultimately people need to stop thinking about the conflict here as between artists and ai as though ai has any autonomy or will of its own
2) this ai (partly as a symptom of it lack of genuine subjectivity) has poor generalization ability, and more crucially is unable to take up generalization as an undertaking (to intentionally
go out of one's way to make abstractions out of a certain manifold of phenomena, and to alter the parameters of this manifold) as opposed to merely a contingent artefact of its initial development. actual artists do not simply synthesize visual data, but they go out of they way to expand their understanding of the visual world around them, and moreover make new visual inventions
(e.g. styles and techniques)… like i said above, they problem solve on paper as they are working on whatever illustration or painting. generative ai is not only unable to do this, it is not even interested in doing this in the first place…
3) (more abstract and less important) when we talk about taking from past experiences, we are here assuming that the ai is in an ongoing development, which isn't the case with narrow ai after the training phase is complete, you are really just interfacing with a crystalline form after a reaction. it is more akin to an incarnated ideality really… i think it is important to see these models more as moments of some larger process rather than self-standing entities or whatnot
>the overall theme should be that ALL models , spec, and training data formats should be open source/libre
i am sorry, but how does this graduate beyond lifestylism? ah, while we are at it we should all just escape to the woods and live in a commune or something… i don't understand this open source culture thing, as it completely ignores the time and resources that is required in order to develop all of this software. you are hoping that the capriciousness of random devs working out of their good will or something can compete with a bunch of megacorporations… the tragic thing here is that with ai this ideal is even more unrealistic when we take into account, again, the economic value of data. how long are we just going to be able to run apis on various websites and scrape data out for free? reddit has already started shutting that stuff down. an extremely important thing about ai especially in its current form is that it is rather rigid, and we severely overestimate how powerful it really is. what is often elided are the ecological conditions that permit ai to thrive and the conditions of possibility for this technology to emerge in the first place. it needs a rather stable environment and it also needs a lot of data to be trained on. this technology is only possible with our very mature internet, and it just so happens the internet is highly centralized. so not only you have the issue of resources, but you also have companies that WILL (see again reddit, and rather annoyingly youtube with youtube-dl) go out of your way to slow down your progress
and i haven't even gotten to the question of what is the strategic meaning of all of this…? speaking of strategy, it is strange i always see people dreading the future of copyright laws, but i never see anyone bother reaching out to artists with a different solution to their concerns. there has barely even been an attempt, and instead they are just dismissed as luddites or landlords. of course, this is not wholly surprising as it is ultimately born from a deeper scorn for people who make art for a living (for whatever reason). we even see this tendency in this very post:<but actually threatens their coding job or the already tenuous value of their liberal and/or fine arts degrees
it's rlly silly. pls stop. don't even have much to add there, just felt the need to air that out>>1639410>What have "anti-capitalists" said? Which ones?
idk seems like he is just referencing like 1 or 2 people on /isg/ and siberia, because that is all i have seen
kek based you got me
Generative networks really don't do what a human does or work like humans do. I think it deserves attention but with AI what we are attempting to do is creating something that *emulates* something humans do and now research is done on things that emulate human reasoning. It should, at the end, look human even if the underlying processes are not the same as those of a brain.
If you work backwards and say "AI does this, and it looks like a human result, therefor…" then you end up saying things like "humans are AI." It's fallacious reasoning that comes from defending this motte and bailey type argument about the *use case* of AI ("AI will never be able to do this task"), when in reality we should expect AI to do most tasks and eventually emulate human reasoning and presentation very well.
Imagine it like a "3d mirror" or something that creates a reflection you can step into and touch. It looks and acts like a human, but this doesn't imply much about the nature of humanity.
Didn't read all that shit, but thanks for the cute dolls. Underrated hobby.
>>1639937>it seems no one has bothered reading
I did, it contained some interesting and insightful thinking (and some useless wanking)
>ugh this idea that people who can't draw or whatever simply lack "talent" is so gross and completely ignores the process of learning to draw that involves not only a development of hand-eye coordination, but also a developing understanding of both the visual field and the visual world as well
I disagree with this. Getting AI to do your art involve an exact description, which imply that getting rid of the mechanical skill needed doesnt mean you also automatically get rid of the problem solving and creativity (although you can leave more to it to the AI, but then your piece will prolly not be as good).
>in reality most uses of ai just amounts to just using it to generate the entire piece
but you made the prompt (and rerolled/adjusted until getting a satisfactory result).
>aggressive insistence that human artists will be replaced
the low value jobs consisting in doing exactly what someone pays you to do following their precise instructions ? ofc they will. A single guy with good experience working with AI can prolly produce this kind of work way faster than any purely manual artist can. Just like architects prolly dont need to work as hard to draw now that there are good 3d tools.
>we seldom actually see this in reality
disagree again, you just have to see how when there is happenings there are now lot of AI generated meme, when we used to need a drawfag.
>sure there is some fiddling around with the prompts but this is nothing like the progressive problem-solving one does in illustration or painting
well of course, prompt invocation is closer to being the guy commissioning the art piece with direct control and many round of feedback than the artist realizing it.
Thing is, a good part of art getting paid is just realizing commission, and that is the art most vulnerable to getting replaced by AI tools. When you hire a concept artist, you pay for his creativity more than mechanical skills, with a commission its the reverse.
onto your new post, I agree with most of it
>make new visual inventions (e.g. styles and techniques)…
I think its underestimating the capabilities. We've seen it more clearly with AI trained to beat humans at games, like go or starcraft. At first you train them with and against human strategies, and they can do that and reach a pretty similar level to some of the bests humans. And then you just keep the base incentives and train them against themselves in a vacuum. And suddenly they come up with all kind of new strategies and progress much faster.
Of course, the rules of games are a lot more easily defined and the reward reinforcement procedure a lot easier than with something as nebulous as art, drawing/music styles. But our enjoyment of art doesnt come from nowhere, and so it should actually be possible to have models trained on the "fundamentals" of what make art enjoyable, which might come up with completely innovative "styles".
>>1639617>Communism is impossible and Marx distinguished it from socialism which apparently isn't the free association of the producers but is "achievable"
Another MLoid outs themselves
srry i stopped browsing leftypol and didn't realize there was a reply in this thread till now
>Getting AI to do your art involve an exact description
this is not true. in prompts, there are a lot of features that an artist would be attentive to that a prompter would not add. i think actually delineating every decision would likely take much longer than actually just drawing the whole thing. if u didnt have ai do. large bulk of the decision making, you would just be drawing purely with words which i think would be much more difficult and much less intuitive than just picking up a pen and drawing something. yes there is experimentation and sometimes even more direct human input involved, but it is not the same as what an artist does, and this is crucial for understanding the relation between the project of artificial intelligence and human art. the experimentation of what prompt to use is more like what u see of a commissioner or an art director, though you already point this out>the low value jobs consisting in doing exactly what someone pays you to do following their precise instructions ?
idk there is a misconception here which is similar to the above for prompting. you are making it sound as what artists are paid to do is purely mechanical transcription, when there is more problem solving that relies on their understanding of the visual world which also adds value. i do think some art jobs would phase out, but it wouldn't be because their work was just following precise instructions, but rather that their work was more about producing "content" with a very uniform style. at any rate, my main point was that focusing on jobs being "replaced" is the wrong way to think, and rather the nature of draftsmanship as a profession will fundamentally transform. it is not as though all those illustrators doing these other jobs could not instead have their skills transfer to this new domain. talk about jobs getting replaced tends to be too doomsaying/culty>disagree again, you just have to see how when there is happenings there are now lot of AI generated meme, when we used to need a drawfag.
this was not what i was talking about. my comment was about the ability for generative ai to aids the artist in the work, and allows people with less skill to level the playing field by using it as a tool. with that said it is weird ur first thought of concrete use case for the ai art thing is ai memes?>I think its underestimating the capabilities […]
idk who knows, but this is just speculation that is not that relevant. if the technology could ever progress to the point where the artificial intelligence does not even need to train on human artwork, then this very dialectic between the vital and cybernetic order comes apart. no one would talk make accusations that ai art is "theft" at that point either. there is a tendency to really focus on the artificial intelligence part of things as though it is just a force of nature, and there is much less attempt to think about how it actually exists materially
The true advantage of AI that will render most human artists job- and useless is speed and quantity.
AI can churn out orders of magnitude more art than humans can. Even if most of it is soulless and has six finger hands, at least some of them will outclass the human artist. All it needs is some rather basic filtering, which is a machine learning/AI job.
I won't be convinced that real AI exists until CAPTCHAs (ostensibly a Turing test) go the fuck away.
AI can already beat captcha they just use them now to make it more computationally expensive to spam
AI is shit
HOLY SHIT THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING
I CAN'T BELIEVE NO-ONE IN THIS THREAD EVER THOUGHT OF A GROUND-BREAKING REVOLUTIONARY CONCEPT LIKE THIS
"AI IS SHIT"
I WILL SCREENSHOT THIS AND POST IT IN EVERY THREAD, THE WORLD MUST KNOW.
AND TO THINK, IF YOU DIDNT OPEN THIS THREAD, IGNORE ALL THE POSTS AND TYPE THIS PROFOUND ANNOUNCEMENT, THE WORKING CLASS MAY HAVE BEEN ENSLAVED FOR A HUNDRED YEARS LONGER. BUT NO, FOR WE HAVE BEEN ENLIGHTED, SAVED, BY THIS CRITICAL INSIGHT.
THE FUTURE IS SAVED. BILLIONS WILL LIVE. AND ITS ALL THANKS TO YOU POSTING WHAT NO-ONE ELSE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE IMAGINED IN THEIR WILDEST DREAMS - AI IS SHIT.>>1683923
It literally doesn't. APIs to outsource captcha solves to 3rd-world clickfarms have been a thing since 2010 or earlier. 1000 solves for $1 last I checked, look them up.
Anyone who slightly opposes AI and technological accelerationism is not a socialist
Will say>AI democratizes art
Is some dumb fucking shit bro
No, what democratized art was the internet (anyone can learn to draw with internet access) and relatively cheap art supplies; allowing people with 0 artistic ability to have a machine make an approximation of someone else’s Art isn’t even artistic production, its just more content
>>1687804>someone else’s Art
oh youre one of those guys who defend IP to death huh
you failed the toothbrush test.
The way I see it, AI is destroying search engines and cenralized social media, driving artists to finally move to the more robust options of federation and personal websites: Overall this is a good thing for artists and will probably cause the for-profit AI maintainers to choke out their own economic incentives. Just training the thing is expensive, and adding a web crawler to that in the anti-webcrawler arms race haphening rn, this will probably leave AI to hobby stuff that artists currently blanket opposed to it would come to be fine with.
its only bad that they havent released the source code and weights and training data, yes :)
Just sell your soul and become a robot skelly boi and just keep resecting at this point.
Unique IPs: 58