I fear that bullying is actually necessary to keep tech bro types from reaching this level of confidence in their bullshit.
They could just take a few humanities classes and think about them, but no, they want to do it the hard way.
Please, just leave that actual nerds alone.
Tech bros are capitalists/fascists. The scientists just want to keep progress going.
Please, just leave that actual nerds alone.
Tech bros exploit nerds.
Actual nerds would be fighting back.
They hate our science, they hate that we are teaching, they hate that we are left wing… we are fighting back by existing.
Shunning people is actually a very helpful societal tool. It it’s unfortunately used a lot by hyper conservatives to the point where left-leaning people don’t find it acceptable to shun others. No we fucking shunning up in this bitch. All the fucking assholes, racists, hyper capitalist scum. Shun them all. They shouldn’t get to fucking show their faces in society and feel good about themselves. They should always feel like everybody around them hates them because we do and they should understand that. If they don’t want to have that feeling then they should have to self-reflect and change.
Shunning people is actually a very helpful societal tool.
If it was only done by moral people to immoral people, sure.
As it strands, it’s done by popular people to different people. Which is very different from the first one.
Make nazis afraid again
That guy – whether real or bot – simping those techbros. I swear his profile description will be full of talk about him being an “investor”, “influencer”, “brand ambassador” of some whiz-bang tech, along with mentions of funny money, AI, and “web3”. Yeah, and they tend to frequently comment around at any celebrity having a Twitter presence or some “trending” post, regardless of the language.
Goddamn narcissists.
This account’s handle is controlla.xyz he sells AI voices
correction, at best, AI art is a mashup of ALL the art humanity ever made. 90% of it is bad, much of that is garbage. yeah, even by that logic AI sucks
90% of it is bad
In accordance with Sturgeon’s law.
And “all of the best art” is not enough training data. If it was, diffusion models would probably have very rigid outputs.
Also, mashing “the best stuff” together is not a good thing.
If I work on a Detroit assembly line, putting wheels on Cadillacs. And I have the idea to steal me a car from the factory, but so I do not get caught I take one piece a time. I figure I will have all the parts by the time I retire. Now, up to now my plan went all right
'Til we tried to put it all together one night
And that’s when we noticed that something was definitely wrong
The transmission was a '53
And the motor turned out to be a '73
And when we tried to put in the bolts all the holes were gone
So we drilled it out so that it would fit
And with a little bit of help with an adapter kit
We had that engine runnin’ just like a song
Now the headlight’ was another sight
We had two on the left and one on the right
But when we pulled out the switch all three of 'em come on
The back end looked kinda funny too
But we put it together and when we got through
Well, that’s when we noticed that we only had one tail-fin
About that time my wife walked out
And I could see in her eyes that she had her doubts
But she opened the door and said, “Honey, take me for a spin”
So we drove up town just to get the tags
And I headed her right on down main drag
I could hear everybody laughin’ for blocks around
But up there at the courthouse they didn’t laugh
'Cause to type it up it took the whole staff
And when they got through the title weighed 60 pounds
I got it one piece at a time
And it didn’t cost me a dime
You’ll know it’s me when I come through your town
I’m gonna ride around in style
I’m gonna drive everybody wild
'Cause I’ll have the only one there is around
Ugh! Yeah, Red Ryder
This is the Cotton Mouth
In the Psycho Billy Cadillac come on
Huh, This is the Cotton Mouth
And negatory on the cost of this mow-chine there Red Ryder
You might say I went right up to the factory
And picked it up, it’s cheaper that way
Ugh!, what model is it?
Well, It’s a '49, '50, '51, '52, '53, '54, '55, '56, ‘57, ‘58’ 59’ automobile
It’s a '60, '61, '62, '63, '64, '65, '66, '67, '68, '69, '70 automobile
I love art. That’s why I hate ai. There was no effort put in, no time no practice nothing human that makes art great. Generative AI is stupid.
I like art. But tying effort, time or practice to art is absolute bullshit. Creative expression. Creating something out of nothing. Putting part of your own mind onto a medium. It’s beautiful.
And then we get AI going full Frankenstein monster on art.
But tying effort, time or practice to art is absolute bullshit.
Agreed.
Effort, time, and practice can be important to the art itself. Filmmakers love long one-shot scenes because it’s an impressive technical achievement and the end result is often made more interesting because of just how it was made. There are authors and sculptors and filmmakers and composers who created masterpieces that were only made possible by the decades of experience they’ve accumulated. For example, Tolkien’s pre-LOTR career is a fascinating look at how he eventually acquired all the tools to be able to create a compelling narrative in a world he created.
But it’s by no means required, or always better, to have the high effort or high skill option over a lower effort or lower skill artwork. Sometimes additional effort is a waste, or counterproductive. Sometimes there’s beauty in the low skill or constrained or rushed option.
Art is a creative process, and any of the little factors can matter, but very few of the factors always matter. It’s a “you know it when you see it” thing.
This makes me think of an anecdote from Rory Sutherland about “30 years of experience delivered in 30 seconds” when some ad exec drew a logo for a large international company right at the meeting where she was hired and someone thought to question her rates.
So the anecdote was from this guy https://youtube.com/shorts/_2KCzBMz1R0
I don’t like marketing people in general but rory is more of a mass psychologist in my opinion than just a tech bro out for money
Okay but creative expression and creating something out of nothing is effort, time, and practice.
The amount of effort, time, and practice may vary but it’s still obviously present in actual art.
Using generative ai to create content is devoid of even the slightest amount of effort put in.
Yeah but I do not perceive effort as something crucial, that’s my point. You are able to put effort into creating a perfect query for AI to create an art - does it make it valid?
In my opinion no, because what it does is regurgiate art - soul, emotion and ideas - of all people it stolen art from before and mixes it into…“art”. There’s no meaning, no soul in it. Thus, not creative, thus, for me, not art. [email protected] written that the prompts used are actually more creative and artistic than the output and I honestly agree.
Yeah, it’s not so much about the difficulty or the practice, it’s in the innate lack of precision that AI offers to manifest any meaningfully specific artistic vision. Whatever vision the creator might have has to be compromised to accept the closest match AI could come up with.
A definition of art that I liked basically said that art is about creative expression through a medium. Whether that expression is done poorly or well is irrelevant. AI “art” doesn’t really express anything except “here’s a possible thing I could make in response to this prompt”.
The prompts themselves are more creative and more artistic than any of the outputs, and I wonder if they could even be copyrightable.
Right, sounds like someone writing a book versus making a movie adaptation. The book has me fill in the gaps, which can in many cases be more satisfying than whatever the film adaptation comes up with, but sometimes a film adaptation executed well adds something. However a hypothetical book-to-film AI would be utterly mind numbingly uninspiring, and I would just take the prompt and use my own imagination to generate what I’d like more.
It’s been fairly obvious to me for some time that a website where people shared the prompts instead of (or alongside of) the output, and that allowed you to hit a generate button to get different versions would be way fucking cooler than a seemingly infinite scroll of uninspired, uncanny, single generation outputs.
I’m conflicted here. Your first paragraph initially opens the loophole “but AI art” could be the medium in which the artist is expressing themselves. So poor prompting could be beautiful too, in a way. I’m sure photographers of the past felt this way about software post editing when that became popular.
The results may be good to many viewers but apalling to anyone who can tell the difference. If the results don’t matter, does it matter if AI slop is “bad”?
The prompt may have been beautiful, and the process of learning and finding the right tools (i.e. choosing the right model) is akin to the struggles of any artist in learning their craft.
/devil’s advocate
If the results don’t matter, does it matter if AI slop is “bad”?
I mean I didn’t say all art defined that way would be good art. But I also don’t find the outputs artistic at all.
The prompt may have been beautiful, and the process of learning and finding the right tools (i.e. choosing the right model) is akin to the struggles of any artist in learning their craft.
I was afraid going down this road too far would make me sound like I was an advocate for this technology. So I typed out something similar multiple times in my initial reply and then deleted it, but that was kind of my thinking as well.
I read an article where a writer was using autocomplete – in the before times when it wasn’t called AI – to try to write a piece about a relative that recently died that fully included the usage of the tool in the article itself, and that’s the closest thing to AI assisted art I’ve ever read. Now I wish I had saved it.
You could say the same about limitations in skill or material properties or…
With a human, a limitation in skill or material properties will tend to manifest in a vague way that lets me fill in the gaps, or else leave non-essential details out.
With GenAI, some details will generally be added, but without any intent behind them.
As another commenter pointed out, I’d probably rather read the prompt and treat it like a book rather than look at the GenAI output stemming from that prompt. If there’s no voice acting, With text content I can just read it instead of looking for meaning in the voice acting when there’s no intent behind the voice. With visual art, then I know there’s intent behind whatever details are there and don’t need to pay too much attention to stuff that doesn’t matter.
Creativity is one part, but knowing the artist put in tremendous effort on making it adds a crucial piece on it.
Is it out of nothing, though? I have very strong feelings against current copyright laws. This is based on my belief that human artists do not create things out of nothing. They are standing on the shoulders of society, which gave them the experience, framework and tools to create art. And thus everything they created should, after some period, belong again to society. There are still enough other reasons to hate AI.
The artists are looking at the blank canvas, be it digital, real, or methaphorical like a piece of stone or 3D square, and then proceed to express themselves through it. Their ideas, emotions, vision, their perception of the world.
You, my dear, do not have hold of any of it. You may have a hold on their canvas, tools of creation, sources their learned they craft on (although with self-taughts, not even that may be true), but you do not hold any of the main reasons art happenes - their soul, let’s say. they do not owe that to anyone or anything.
Sorry if I sound aggressive just…the notion that society owns something so personal as art? No.
Only in terms of copyright and for published art. And I absolutely stand by my belief that your copyright needs to be limited to like 10 years and after that it becomes public domain.
I do draw myself, on a purely amateur level. And I don’t like this notion that artists create something out of thin air. That’s simply bullshit. Any artist is deeply influenced by their upbringing and personal tastes and that’s what ends up on whatever medium they choose.
I hate AI because when art is created by people. The artist is relying upon previous influence, their experiences, their artistic vision, etc.
Current AI just vomits everything. AI doesn’t have the ability to actually think.
I’d argue that there was human effort put in to develop it and make it learn how it’s learning now - but it shouldn’t be used to copy others’ art and make “art” on its own. Instead I’d really like it to see help diagnose and treat diseases, prevent crime and things like that. Ultimately it should be a tool to enhance human reasoning, not something to replace human creativity.
The issue with ‘AI’ is that it is so broad.
So we have Generative AI and other AI.
So when you talk about developing disease treatment, to the extent that AI is involved, it’s not Generative AI, some other machine learning techniques, with limitations. E.g. AlphaFold is pretty good at predictions for some proteins, but will fall apart for certain classes. Useful with limitations.
When you have help diagnose, then maybe you are in generative AI territory, and maybe useful to help find medical research that is relevant the doctor could not have kept with on their own, however it shouldn’t be a crutch, and getting caught up in trying to get an answer out of LLM can be just as bad as trying to get a sane answer out of it for anything else. So maybe useful if the Doctor’s think it’s supremely stupid but it did manage to identify actually relevant source material for an unrecognized problem. Other than LLM, then maybe the more ‘traditional’ AI approaches can help with things like quick check on imaging that might have otherwise been skipped (if we actually had enough quality, labeled stuff for asymptomatic problems in scans, which I don’t think we do). Might be able to identify more complex patterns in bloodwork, but again, would have to be trained in nuanced ways I don’t think we are equipped to do.
Prevent crime is a tough one. I don’t think I’ve seen anything resembling success above and beyond a human understanding of crime frequencies in an area, which is generally self-evident by looking at a map of incident reports without an AI saying anything. I know they tried to predict recidivism based on data about a subject, but that was a colossal failure.
The general conundrum is that generative AI is unreliable and not generally more magical than a pretty dumb human taking a look at fairly obvious visualizations. You need use cases where you have some potential improvement that wasn’t worth human attention prior. For example, hypothetically, if you needed to search for a literal needle in a haystack, an effort that human-wise wouldn’t be worth it, an AI approach could help you maybe find it. It might identify a hundred straws of hay as needles and may even miss the needle entirely, but there’s at least some chance it brings the problem down to practical reach of a human, so long as it’s not that important if the needle can’t be found anyway.
There are medical efforts using ai. Recently heard a story about AI helping doctors diagnose cancer faster by using it.
Hey! That’s insulting to dumpster juice. At least that produces value to scavengers and microbes and shit
It’s also the critical fuel used by most time travel devices. So…
I love that shot so much. I love that he empties the can first, and then throws the whole thing in. There’s a reason this is my favorite movie.
In some minds culture has already been replaced with technology.
corporate slop has been replacing culture for over a century, this isn’t new
Capitalism commodifies everything.
Had a friend that worked for the waste management department of a nearby coastal town.
One day they were picking up the 55 gallon drums the city used a waste bins on the main street. They usually had small holes drilled in the bottom so as to let water and whatever wet that got in the barrels drain (yes, they did have industrial bin liners in them, but invariably someone would throw in a bottle and it would break and poke holes through, so there was always soupy garbage goo in the bottom…)
Did I mention the barrels usually had holes drilled in them?
Not this one.
Friend was lifting it onto the rack body municipal truck and the kid on the truck grabs the bottom of the barrel that is sitting on the lip of the truck bed and tilts it back… so the sludge runoff runs out, right into friend’s face - as he is telling the kid to watch out as the bottom of that barrel seems a bit wet…
Straight into his mouth, nose and eyes… It was shades of the Toxic Avenger, as he went right to the ground, choking and spluttering.
I saw him a few hours later and he’d gotten blazing drunk so as to put so much vodka into his system, no germs would survive. We agreed after much deliberation, he was either a dead man walking or he’d boosted his immunity to every disease known to man and had gained immortality.
There’s fierce chemistry and biology in dumpsters, bins and barrels.
We never found out if he was gifted immortality from the garbage soup as he was also a raging alcoholic and drank himself into liver failure a decade later. :(
I’m sorry to hear about your friend, but also jealous that he didn’t have to live through the AI Slopocene era.
And your story is equal parts hilarious and terrifying. Bravo.
Yeah, when I saw him later that day, the way he told the story was pretty hilarious. He was wearing hiw work coat which was on the porch railing as I cam to the front dor and it was still damp and reeked with the stink of death.
It was the work coat that prompted me to ask what the hell happened, and we were off and running with the tale of woe.
He was one of the funniest, most creative guys I’ve ever met. Miss him fiercely.
Great story. Sorry about the end, though.
so as to put so much vodka into his system, no germs would survive
I know this is just an aside, and not the main point of your story, but for everyone watching from home, drinking alcohol actively sabotages your body’s ability to fight off infections.
We use alcohol to disinfect things, but only between 60-80%. Higher than that, and there’s not enough water to effectively deliver the alcohol molecules to the cell membranes where they’ll do their work. Lower than 50%, and the alcohol molecules aren’t concentrated enough to effectively destroy most bacterial membranes. That means pouring regular old 80 proof/40% vodka isn’t going to effectively disinfect things on contact.
And even if you’re drinking high proof spirits, beyond the 40% minimum of most vodkas, once it’s in the body it gets diluted down at least 2 orders of magnitude, to where the blood alcohol concentration of anything under the coma-inducing/deadly 0.4% is basically negligible in terms of damaging the cells of unwanted microbes. But while your body works to rid your body of that poison, your immune system is weakened, and will do a worse job of preventing those unwanted microbes from taking hold in your system.
I don’t necessarily hate AI art. It’s just not very good.
I hate that people think they’re “artists” because they write a prompt.
I hate that businesses are trying to replace real artists with AI.
I hate that businesses are telling me I have to see and interact with AI slop.
I hate that AI is a resource hog.
I hate that AI gets it wrong a significant amount of the time.
I hate AI “art” most because it’s trained using other people’s artwork without their permission. Not only is the end product bad and soulless, but it’s also built on stolen artwork
Fucking clanker apologists
Clank-ah
I’m ready to bet that was on LinkedIn.
It certainly has LinkedIn energy, but that screenshot is not from LinkedIn. They have multiple reaction emojis, whatever this is only has a heart.
I think that’s the Threads UI.
Art is an expression of thought and emotion.
Ergo, images and video generated by AI do not count as art, since they have no thought or emotion.
Amen
Aah, yes, true creativity. When you suck up the efforts of actual creatives and then regurgitate it back to people.
And therein lies the problem: Diffusion and Large Language models (and their, heh, clanker ilk) cannot originate anything. All they can do is remix what’s already there. It’s ultimately stagnation in creativity (which, to be fair, is what we’ve largely been seeing in capitalist-owned media the last couple decades or so, with the proclivity toward remakes/reboots, etc.)
“Capitalist-owned media” has never, and will never, define or epitomize creativity. Their only purpose is to acquire, remix, and drain existing creative work for their own profit. Even with emerging generative technology, these corporations are doing the same as they’ve always done (far longer than a couple decades), so looking to them as a barometer of how creative people are or can be is beyond foolish, and is further insulting to actual creatives, who won’t be diminished or eliminated by this programmatic slop.
Actually yes, if you like using AI to make things I do actually hate your art and expression.
You’re why Ready Player One was popular. Just the epitome of the “Just two things” trend of mashing two unrelated pop culture references into one thing, except it’s all pop culture references, and you expect praise for it.
It’s like a child playing with toys but infinitely less imaginative.
