>>2351607He showed the actual video trend of the response to the first content nuke.
>>2351639it's registered from the Addon aparently, the actual like/dislike ratio from the video creator side.
>>2352018All LLMs fall apart under any real scrutiny. It can superficially emulate but fundamentally has no understanding and loses track of things easily. You can trick them into saying just about anything. Ultimately AI is good enough for superficial conversations, regurgitating old essays and repeating flat genre stories but nothing in depth.
This will force people to talk more irl and actually make good literature as most people don't want to waste their time engaging with an overpowered toaster.
>>2351313this is like if hitler one day looked at the camera and said "yes, I want to kill all the jews and genocide eurasia, and I'm doing all of this on behalf of the german industrial capitalists, who want to run an empire that rivals the united states. all that stuff about aryans and the german spirit? just bullshit. actually, jk jk lol I was being ironic, I still believe in the aryan spirit n shit"
like, how are you supposed to respond to that? she clearly knows WHAT she is, but also parodies it? fuckin weird
>>2351132I wish she'd sit on my face tbh
>>2350823>3 likes 1 commentThere's meth addled schizos, accounts posting futa furry slop, and fat onlyfans ethots who have a bigger following than this dude
>>2352088True. No more self-absorbed chuds gatekeeping knowledge.
>Hi [insert LLM], can you explain this (badly and erroneously documented) function from [obscure library last updated four years ago] to me please?<Sure here's a four paragraph explanation of how it works and an example you can test 😊 and if you have any follow up questions please let me know!As opposed to some hostile fat mid 30s cheeto stained giga-tism mod either insulting you for being the most dimwitted retard to have ever graced this planet for having asked this question in the first place, and berating you for wasting everyone's time. Or immediately closing your thread for being off-topic, irrelevant, and not-your-personal-assistant.
>>2352099No. AI is not destroying culture. What it is destroying is the gatekeeping mechanisms of a particular class of people who rely on acting as intermediaries between people and knowledge in order to survive.
People are still playing acoustic instruments after synthesizers were invented. The invention of film did not mean the end of theater. The existence of digital art and tools like GIMP and Photoshop does not mean people have stopped painting on canvasses.
The purpose of life is not to be "productive" and produce "commodities" for sale on the market. That's the sick twisted worldview of particular group of anglo protestants.
>There exist powerful beings that can do things people can'tHas never been an impediment for human culture even thousands of years ago when people believed Gods created the world and controlled everything from seasons to the rising and setting of the sun.
>>2352128>[thing that got replaced by a mechanical reproduction] is the same thing as AIthis opinion is popular amongst "communists" and i have no knowledge for why you'd believe this, because it isn't true, the job of the painter wasn't abolished with the camera, true, but the difference is that generative ai is not like the camera, is not like the synthesizer, the synthesizer never fully replaced electric or acoustic instruments, because it could never do so, it served a fundamentally different role, but generative AI is more or less a black hole, it eats the fruits of human labor, and spits out mangled versions of it that are uglier and uglier by the day, and more wasteful, would it be in the communist's interest for example to oppose a mass poisoning of agriculture by a new technology, that turns all current plants into less nutritious, less valuable versions of what was put in?
>>2352102Third-worldism aside, why should communists waste their time trying to improve STEM education instead of actually organizing the working class?
>>2352131>but generative AI is more or less a black hole, it eats the fruits of human labor, and spits out mangled versions of it that are uglier and uglier by the day, and more wastefulThis is all artistic endeavors under capitalism. Unless you think all the non-AI generated Marvel movies are some great art?
You know in the 2013 sequel to The Thing, they had done the entire movie with practical effects. They did the entire movie with practical effects. People worked slaved over that shit. Because the original movie was well known for its fantastic practical effects, and those practical effects have absolutely stand at the test of time. But they replaced it with CGI, and this is 2013 CGI, so it's not the peak of CGI, you know. It's not the best, and it was done pretty quickly because they spent the entire filming using practical effects. So they're in post trying to make it work, and the movie is significantly worse as a result. Visual effects, CGI, is more or less an art form, and yet people are still upset at it replacing practical effects. Now you can extrapolate this out if you lack critical thinking, which you might lack critical thinking because the AI is done it for you. You should be able to extrapolate this out to why people don't like AI content. Why only people with severe retardation, people with literal coconut shell brains, like AI content. You can almost even imagine why this has become a culture war issue, and why right-wingers prefer AI content over human-drawn content, and they're willing to brag about it. It's because, ultimately, the CGI is cheaper. That's the only reason they care, and if you set the precedent that we'll do practical effects that are expensive for a big-budget film, we don't want that precedent to stick.
>>2352131Synthesizers were replicating the sounds of acoustic instruments 20 years ago. The Hartmann Neuron dates back to 2003.
What makes art meaningful, is what it means to the artist. (And to the audience, with art as a window into the world of the artist)
The paintings of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are hardly photorealistic. In terms of artisan skill they do not compare to Rembrandt or Michelangelo, and yet it makes them no less meaningful or historically important.
I attribute this angst surrounding generative AI to the fear of (personal) obsolescence in a world which often feels like it's continuously emphasizing that our lives are only meaningful insofar as we are "productive".
Generative AI is a quaint gimmick, but it does not invalidate why I make art in the first place. Any more than much more (technically) skilled already existing artists did.
>>2352158>Synthesizers were replicating the sounds of acoustic instruments 20 years ago. The Hartmann Neuron dates back to 2003.yet they never replaced it, which is the point, the point is that i'm not saying any of these things are bad, what i'm saying is that these things are all fine because they are other tools, whereas generative a"I" being framed as such is downright misleading at best and most of the time is actively harmful, if you can flood the world with low quality garbage, and are actively incentivised to do so by capitalism itself, then human culture is put at stake, since there's less of a reason to produce stuff that's worth its weight in what it can do for people, that's the point of what i'm trying to convey, that it is important for a communist movement to acknowledge at the very least as a problem that communism WILL fix as it abolishes society as it presently exists
>>2352150I don't see why Generative AI should be opposed in particular, as opposed to the other "slop" generated by capitalism.
>>2352134I've read Land, but I don't see how "Generative AI is bad" follows from Land's arguments
>>2352156If I paint a painting by hand, and then figure out a prompt that allows an AI to generate the exact painting I made earlier, does that make the painting slop? What if it involves The Night Watch, the Last Supper, or the frescoes of the Sistine Chapel?
>>2352131lol workers in the third world are calmly and non-hysterically using AI to reduce their workloads, while firstoids are hysterical.
Why? Because firstoids don't produce value, their only function is gatekeeping information and acting as "authorative voices", the two things AI erodes.
>>2352164>I don't see why Generative AI should be opposed in particular, as opposed to the other "slop" generated by capitalism. it is more immediately destructive
>If I paint a painting by hand, and then figure out a prompt that allows an AI to generate the exact painting I made earlier, does that make the painting slop? What if it involves The Night Watch, the Last Supper, or the frescoes of the Sistine Chapel?an interesting hypothetical that has built in presumptions of generative a"i" that doesn't exist and i doubt will ever exist, the point is that you put something in of a varying quality, and there's an effective 100% chance that even if what you put in was bad, the generative a"i" will make it even worse
>>2352165give an actual example
>>2352160>this old new technology is ok because it's just another tool in the toolbox, but this new new techology is the end of the world and instrument of satanlol
since when do imageboarders care about the internet getting flooded with with low quality garbage anyway? are you so presumptuous as to think that the collective output of a billion retards, in social media and comment sections and homepages, was worth anything in the first place, or are you just retarded?
>>2352183yes, and llms let you conveniently navigate said collective output.
what's the problem again?
>>2352160>since there's less of a reason to produce stuff that's worth its weight in what it can do for peopleBut here's the thing, why is the the purpose of art it's ability to do things for others? That's the fundamental disagreement here: Whether any level of AI/capitalist slop can ever invalidate or obsolete non-AI generated/capitalist media, imagery, etc. As meaningful in itself.
Humans didn't invent the millions of species out there, and yet we can still find (rain) forests, mountains and coral reefs both beautiful and meaningful, both on a personal and cultural level.
This also reminds of some drama from 20+ years ago, during the early-ish days of digital art. Where some people argued (in regards to pixel art) that using plugins to convert images into pixel art invalidated the artistic value of the images.
You write that Generative AI
>>2352166 is "more immediately destructive" but why? The only thing I can think of that makes it uniquely destructive is vis-a-vis artisanal skill. The same way that the invention of photography "cheapened" the prestige and "value" of landscape painting, and botanical and natural history illustration which many artists relied upon at the time to make a living.
But this did not end either of those categories either. And for some it was an impetus for moving away from "realism" towards romanticism, impressionism, expressionism, and other later forms and styles (cubism, surrealism, etc).
Anyway what I'm trying to hint at here is that the cultural and personal "value" of art has never been dependent (solely) on its ability to be (re)produced mechanically.
Unique IPs: 19