9 ms·

As an artist (music, film, 3D modeling/rendering, creative writing, portraiture) and an AI engineer, I'll admit I have a lot of uncertainty about the future of

by mkaic 4y ago

As an artist (music, film, 3D modeling/rendering, creative writing, portraiture) and an AI engineer, I'll admit I have a lot of uncertainty about the future of art. Some days I'm very scared, other days I figure I'll just "go with the flow" and not worry too much about a future I can't control. I read the papers. I see the pace of progress. I understand how these models work on a technical level and I am blown away by how quickly they are being iterated on. I expect little to no digital art (images, videos, films, music, writing) will be sold for profit by human artists 10 years from now, and the only reason I haven't extended that to physical media like sculpture or street art is that I don't know whether we'll have dextrous enough robots to make those yet (though dextrous robots will indubitably come soon as well). People love to bring out the painting-and-photography example as a defense for why AI is not actually going to bring an end to the art market, but I just don't see it as a valid analogy. Photography and painting both survived because they're fundamentally different things and can be easily distinguished in cases where their respective artists choose to differentiate themselves. AI art is different, because its entire purpose is to replicate, and no matter what human artists do with the medium of digital images, the AI will always be right there to gobble up the new wave changes and learn to replicate them. Whereas the advent of photography was never meant to kill the painting industry, these AI algorithms are very much meant to kill the image industry, whether that was the intention of the researchers or not.

karpierz 4y ago
> I expect little to no digital art (images, videos, films, music, writing) will be sold for profit by human artists 10 years from now, and the only reason I haven't extended that to physical media like sculpture or street art is that I don't know whether we'll have dextrous enough robots to make those yet (though dextrous robots will indubitably come soon as well). I would 100% take you up on this bet. > People love to bring out the painting-and-photography example as a defense for why AI is not actually going to bring an end to the art market, but I just don't see it as a valid analogy. I think that painting-and-photography is the wrong analogy; stuff like DALLE is a continuation of Photoshop. Compilers didn't put programmers out of business, it just moved them one layer up.
- johnfn 4y ago
  > I think that painting-and-photography is the wrong analogy; stuff like DALLE is a continuation of Photoshop. Compilers didn't put programmers out of business, it just moved them one layer up. I don't know. As Wait But Why likes to say, cars sure did put horses out of business, pretty much thoroughly and permanently.
  - astrange 4y ago
    Artists aren't horses because artists are actually intentionally participating in the economy. Horses just want to do horse stuff and don't particularly have any desire to be employed by carriage drivers.
    - johnfn 4y ago
      I don't really see what the difference is. If I want to intentionally participate in the economy by dragging a carriage with people in it around in exchange for money, no one is going to employ me because my services are obviously inferior to those that a car can provide. Similarly, perhaps artists will wish to participate in the economy by making art, but they're going to find scanty employment when compared with machines which can operate 100x faster than they can, and arguably at a higher quality of output.
      - astrange 4y ago
        Well, what I mean is the horses and carriages aren’t even produced anymore since we don’t want them, and they didn’t do anything to make themselves useful again, not being sentient. The human beings previously called artists will still be around as humans and will still have jobs, even if it’s some other job. “Artist” is a vague term though, and I think we’d still have a lot of them due to Jevons’ paradox, the same way ATM machines have actually caused the number of bank tellers to increase. Especially because it’s high-status for society to say they support artists, which isn’t the case for other service workers like bank tellers. There is a niche for horse rides, though - they’re romantic and I’ve seen them as tourist gimmicks in different cities. Artists have a bigger niche, as AI art (so far) produces digital images and not, say, physical sculpture or paintings.
yunwal 4y ago
> Photography and painting both survived because they're fundamentally different things and can be easily distinguished in cases where their respective artists choose to differentiate themselves I think there's a good argument to be made that photography killed photorealism in painting (or at least, it's an ever-shrinking niche). Photorealism was cheapened, and in response, Modern Art was created. What's getting cheapened now is transforming works into digitally-defineable idea-spaces. Create a new idea in art, give a machine enough representations, and it can endlessly generate new works within that space. What's not getting cheapened yet is 1) New idea-spaces -> I've yet to see an AI generate something that could be defined as a new art "movement" 2) New mediums -> I'm sure that something like Dall-E will exist for 3D CAD files sooner or later, but there are a lot of mediums that won't be physically reproduce-able by a computer (think James Turrell). Works in these spaces will remain valuable or even increase in value. And while AI might be able to generate new ideas in these spaces, there will need to be people to decide to put in the effort to execute them. 3) Curation and "found art" -> Deciding which ideas (generated or not) deserve attention.
- jrumbut 4y ago
  > Modern Art was created An interesting aspect of this was a (partial) severing of the connection between a lot of the population and the art world. If AI means artists need to get weirder to survive, it widens this disconnect. That might be the biggest tragedy in all of this.
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4y ago
    Photography eventually led to the creation of an entirely new vidual medium though: films. Films have a ton of artistic value, and even today, and a regular joe can appreciate many brand new, critically acclaimed films. AI will absolutely kill some forms of art, and force others to change in a way that alienates most people. (Pop music and background muzak seem like low hanging fruit, because music can be distilled to numbers and signals much easier than other forms of art.) But AI will undoubtedly lead to the creation of entirely new forms of art as well.
fleddr 4y ago
Let's not stop here. AI is coming for our creative part, which we imagined would be last in line. It already is doing a reasonable job at it. If it can do that, and will next exponentially increase in capability, what really remains of us?
- coffee_beqn 4y ago
  Blue collar jobs that require dexterity
  - awillen 4y ago
    I think nursing will be the last job to get automated away. It's all about dexterity and human interaction.
    - hef19898 4y ago
      Dull, dirty and dangerous jobs will be the last. Why waste a perfectly good and expensive robot if a cheap human can do it?
      - awillen 4y ago
        Disagree on 2/3. Dull tasks are some of the best for robots - their attention never wanders, they never get fatigued, and their performance is always going to stay consistent. Dangerous jobs are already being given to robots - just look at the military. Even outside of that, humans getting hurt means liability/expensive insurance (not to mention bad publicity). Humans will probably be stuck with the dirty jobs, though.
- atemerev 4y ago
  From a song in an old Soviet movie: “all worries are forgotten, all rat races have stopped: robots are toiling, humans are happy”.
foldingmoney 4y ago
>I expect little to no digital art (images, videos, films, music, writing) will be sold for profit by human artists 10 years from now you think AI auto-generated movies will kill the human film industry? AI novels? these are both fundamentally different from the kind of recombination that DALL-E is doing. >the only reason I haven't extended that to physical media like sculpture or street art is that I don't know whether we'll have dextrous enough robots to make those yet (though dextrous robots will indubitably come soon as well). 3d printing >these AI algorithms are very much meant to kill the image industry, whether that was the intention of the researchers or not. hmm
- Eji1700 4y ago
  Yeah anyone claiming they understand what these things do, and how they do it, and then expecting them to replace digital writing/film is just...not going to happen. Not in 10 years at least. We're not even close. Every time people start freaking out about the AI apocalypse, i tend to point out that to my knowledge, there's no learning style AI that's beaten a mario game, especially in a real "human" style (play through each level and learn them). I've seen an AI that can beat mario 1 this way, but it doesn't "learn", it just "brute forces" by trying random inputs, and then save state reloading if it gets a bad output (dies/gets stuck), and then does thousands of those games in parallel. And this ONLY works with mario 1 in part because "go right" is ALWAYS correct. Take any further mario game, where more vertical/backwards exploration is a thing, and its not even possible (mario 3 for example). It would be trivial of course to just program it to beat every game and get everything, by literally programming the correct inputs (literally a tas) but a task that is expected to be doable by a young human child is, again to my minimal knowledge of amateur research, not even remotely within the realm of possible for modern AI.
  - pcthrowaway 4y ago
    Is it far-fetched to think that AI animating comic books / manga into cartoons is that far away?
    - Eji1700 4y ago
int_19h 4y ago
At the end of the day, either AI art is "good enough" (whatever your criteria are - "novelty", "soul" etc), or not. If it's not, then human-made art will continue to exist, to the extent there's demand for it. But if AI really is that good at art, it would seem that it's not really a problem from the perspective of society at large. It would be a problem for artists who rely on art as their source of income, but that's something that is fairly easy to solve, since all it takes is money.
- kookamamie 4y ago
  In my estimate, the common joe cannot distinguish between "real" and AI-generated art today. We're only seeing the first generation of AIs right now with the tech such as Midjourney, DALL-E 2, Imagen and Parti. I think it's pretty presumptuous to assume this trajectory would not continue to the point where most people would have a hard time identifying AI-generated images from real ones. My work is in this area and I absolutely foresee some industries/arts getting decimated by the upcoming research in these topics - however, it's pretty hard to put the genie back in the bottle at this stage.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    > it's pretty hard to put the genie back in the bottle at this stage. The real question is, why would we want to, if the genie is truly that good?
  - optimalsolver 4y ago
    *Average Joe, just FYI.
  - lerchmo 4y ago
    The awareness for Dall-E / Midjourney is exploding. These tools are incredibly compelling and things like game art will definitely be generated by AI's in the near future. The possibilities are barely explored.
- jrumbut 4y ago
  Leonardo da Vinci didn't just pick up a paint brush, knock out the Mona Lisa, and call it a career. He built his skills as an apprentice in workshops doing background figures and lesser commissions. Later artists (to the present day) have created prints and works for clients. It's this work that creates the opportunity for masterpieces to happen. If that market goes away, the top end will be affected. I'm not sure things like fellowships and residency programs can recreate this by just throwing money at the problem. There is something unique about the pressures of having to be bold enough to stand out from the crowd but accessible enough for broad appeal. I'm not sure there's anything to be done, but I think we should recognize something is going to be lost here.
shams93 4y ago
Well conceptual artists get a big boost you used to need to have a budget to hire artisans to build out your ideas now all it takes is an app.
esyir 4y ago
I'll add in that sculpture too might see challenge, thought it's materials might see resistance for some time. 3d Printing is already at a state where the output is of extremely high detail, and still on it's ascent (resin printing specifically). While not a like-for-like comparison, it's seen heavy use in favor of traditional sculpting in multiple industries, such as miniature production, where it completely replaces or heavily reduces the use of the traditional skillset.
mxkopy 4y ago
There's no algorithm that generates artistic meaning. These neural nets allow you to employ arbitrary styles and techniques, but no AI can't come up with meaningful messages on its own...yet I imagine at its height, AI would make "commodity art" less valuable. But stuff like Rhythm 0, Black Square, The Lighthouse; that sort of art, by definition, can't be generated. Maybe we'll start valuing the more obscure stuff, not dissimilar to how I value the Google result that actually shows the Julia error I'm getting that only 3 people have seen more than the docs page that matches a quarter of the string I pasted directly from the terminal
- atemerev 4y ago
  You just need to set up a generalized adversarial model that optimizes for meaning!
- mkaic 4y ago
  I'd agree with you, but I have yet to come across a salient, non-circular definition of "meaning" in this context that makes it somehow unobtainable by robots. What is the meaning you speak of? This isn't meant to come across as snarky either, I'm genuinely curious to hear your thoughts.
  - mxkopy 4y ago
    I think of meaning in terms of Saussure's sign and signified. "The Earth orbits around the sun" for example, is literally a string of characters. As a sign, however, its correspondent signifier could be a diagram of the solar system or something like that. In general meaning is the parts of an experience that are salient to its representation as a sign. It's a sign's signified. Robots lack an embodied experience that would be necessary for them to understand human meanings. They don't know what it feels like to step on a Lego, so a whole class of memes and meanings are unavailable to them as a result. There are probably things that we, as humans, don't know that we feel but still impart meaning. It would be very hard to get a robot to say something like "as the blood rushed to my ears" in a truly meaningful way. Most who end up using that phrase in a sentence don't use its full meaning when thinking about it (so there's higher than normal pressure in the head, etc) but if pressed can expound on it in a way that would be obviously different than a robot's (GPT3 would say, the meaning of this sentence is [0.5435, 24.2352, 1.3245], nearby sentences I've seen have embeddings [1.5532, 0.3552, 4.2442])
bennyg 4y ago
I loved this comment so much, I had to toss the first sentence into a DALL-E Mini renderer. It came up with this: https://imgur.com/a/P6SPhlH https://imgur.com/a/P6SPhlH. This one left me with the most sense of existential dread that I get out of your viewpoint for how digital art evolves.
- hef19898 4y ago
  That is scary...
- FartyMcFarter 4y ago
  Looks like Stephen Merchant.
- wseqyrku 4y ago
  That is really, all of that.
- personalidea 4y ago
  [Stable Diffusions interpretation of the second sentence](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1006094456799363082/1009598950375948358/some_days_im_very_scared_other_days_i_figure_ill_just_go_with_the_flow_and_not_worry_too_much_about_a_future_i_cant_control._-n_4_-g_-S_3206181553_ts-1660777524_idx-0-0..png https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1006094456799363082...)
archagon 4y ago
An AI could make something look like a Picasso, but it could never invent cubism. Without thought behind it, it is just advanced regurgitation.
- freetime2 4y ago
  Could an AI, and some selective process (think YouTube algorithm) over billions of iterations evolve cubism?
- sp527 4y ago
  > An AI could make something look like a Picasso, but it could never invent cubism. I wouldn't bet on this
- lerchmo 4y ago
  "Never" and "AI" in the same sentence requires a high level of confidence in a specific future. I don't see why AI of the future couldn't generate a mind with all of the complexity and life experience (simulated) that Picasso was inspired by. Do that a trillion times and we might get things even cooler than cubism.
hef19898 4y ago
Your last paragraph is one potential use for blockchain that migjt actually work. Assuming a manually taken picture (regardless if digital or film) has some inherent value that an AI recreation does not, using blockchain to proof an actual person took that picture on site serves a purpose. Personally, I think those "orginals" have value. AI could have an impact on digital art (besides using it optimize digital pictures in Lightroom), social media (why go to places for likes if that can be had by creating a deep fake, it does link back to the point about "originals" so) and the like. That being said, forgery, staging and other shenenigans have a long history in photography. As wr talk art, as long as people are ooen about it it's fine. It becomes a problem if art work is sold as something it is not.
- mkaic 4y ago
  While I agree with your sentiment, I don't see why this couldn't be accomplished with just standard cryptographic hashing verification based off of, say, a scan of the artist's iris salted with a timestamp that is then encoded into the file. What do you think a blockchain would add to it?
GoblinSlayer 4y ago
Sure, some artists, like Glen Cook, can be replaced by AI, but honestly they are already not quite readable.

by mkaic 4y ago

karpierz 4y ago

> I expect little to no digital art (images, videos, films, music, writing) will be sold for profit by human artists 10 years from now, and the only reason I haven't extended that to physical media like sculpture or street art is that I don't know whether we'll have dextrous enough robots to make those yet (though dextrous robots will indubitably come soon as well). I would 100% take you up on this bet. > People love to bring out the painting-and-photography example as a defense for why AI is not actually going to bring an end to the art market, but I just don't see it as a valid analogy. I think that painting-and-photography is the wrong analogy; stuff like DALLE is a continuation of Photoshop. Compilers didn't put programmers out of business, it just moved them one layer up.

johnfn 4y ago
> I think that painting-and-photography is the wrong analogy; stuff like DALLE is a continuation of Photoshop. Compilers didn't put programmers out of business, it just moved them one layer up. I don't know. As Wait But Why likes to say, cars sure did put horses out of business, pretty much thoroughly and permanently.
- astrange 4y ago
  Artists aren't horses because artists are actually intentionally participating in the economy. Horses just want to do horse stuff and don't particularly have any desire to be employed by carriage drivers.
  - johnfn 4y ago
    I don't really see what the difference is. If I want to intentionally participate in the economy by dragging a carriage with people in it around in exchange for money, no one is going to employ me because my services are obviously inferior to those that a car can provide. Similarly, perhaps artists will wish to participate in the economy by making art, but they're going to find scanty employment when compared with machines which can operate 100x faster than they can, and arguably at a higher quality of output.
    - astrange 4y ago
      Well, what I mean is the horses and carriages aren’t even produced anymore since we don’t want them, and they didn’t do anything to make themselves useful again, not being sentient. The human beings previously called artists will still be around as humans and will still have jobs, even if it’s some other job. “Artist” is a vague term though, and I think we’d still have a lot of them due to Jevons’ paradox, the same way ATM machines have actually caused the number of bank tellers to increase. Especially because it’s high-status for society to say they support artists, which isn’t the case for other service workers like bank tellers. There is a niche for horse rides, though - they’re romantic and I’ve seen them as tourist gimmicks in different cities. Artists have a bigger niche, as AI art (so far) produces digital images and not, say, physical sculpture or paintings.

yunwal 4y ago

> Photography and painting both survived because they're fundamentally different things and can be easily distinguished in cases where their respective artists choose to differentiate themselves I think there's a good argument to be made that photography killed photorealism in painting (or at least, it's an ever-shrinking niche). Photorealism was cheapened, and in response, Modern Art was created. What's getting cheapened now is transforming works into digitally-defineable idea-spaces. Create a new idea in art, give a machine enough representations, and it can endlessly generate new works within that space. What's not getting cheapened yet is 1) New idea-spaces -> I've yet to see an AI generate something that could be defined as a new art "movement" 2) New mediums -> I'm sure that something like Dall-E will exist for 3D CAD files sooner or later, but there are a lot of mediums that won't be physically reproduce-able by a computer (think James Turrell). Works in these spaces will remain valuable or even increase in value. And while AI might be able to generate new ideas in these spaces, there will need to be people to decide to put in the effort to execute them. 3) Curation and "found art" -> Deciding which ideas (generated or not) deserve attention.

jrumbut 4y ago
> Modern Art was created An interesting aspect of this was a (partial) severing of the connection between a lot of the population and the art world. If AI means artists need to get weirder to survive, it widens this disconnect. That might be the biggest tragedy in all of this.
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4y ago
  Photography eventually led to the creation of an entirely new vidual medium though: films. Films have a ton of artistic value, and even today, and a regular joe can appreciate many brand new, critically acclaimed films. AI will absolutely kill some forms of art, and force others to change in a way that alienates most people. (Pop music and background muzak seem like low hanging fruit, because music can be distilled to numbers and signals much easier than other forms of art.) But AI will undoubtedly lead to the creation of entirely new forms of art as well.

fleddr 4y ago

Let's not stop here. AI is coming for our creative part, which we imagined would be last in line. It already is doing a reasonable job at it. If it can do that, and will next exponentially increase in capability, what really remains of us?

coffee_beqn 4y ago
Blue collar jobs that require dexterity
- awillen 4y ago
  I think nursing will be the last job to get automated away. It's all about dexterity and human interaction.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    Dull, dirty and dangerous jobs will be the last. Why waste a perfectly good and expensive robot if a cheap human can do it?
    - awillen 4y ago
      Disagree on 2/3. Dull tasks are some of the best for robots - their attention never wanders, they never get fatigued, and their performance is always going to stay consistent. Dangerous jobs are already being given to robots - just look at the military. Even outside of that, humans getting hurt means liability/expensive insurance (not to mention bad publicity). Humans will probably be stuck with the dirty jobs, though.
atemerev 4y ago
From a song in an old Soviet movie: “all worries are forgotten, all rat races have stopped: robots are toiling, humans are happy”.

foldingmoney 4y ago

>I expect little to no digital art (images, videos, films, music, writing) will be sold for profit by human artists 10 years from now you think AI auto-generated movies will kill the human film industry? AI novels? these are both fundamentally different from the kind of recombination that DALL-E is doing. >the only reason I haven't extended that to physical media like sculpture or street art is that I don't know whether we'll have dextrous enough robots to make those yet (though dextrous robots will indubitably come soon as well). 3d printing >these AI algorithms are very much meant to kill the image industry, whether that was the intention of the researchers or not. hmm

Eji1700 4y ago
Yeah anyone claiming they understand what these things do, and how they do it, and then expecting them to replace digital writing/film is just...not going to happen. Not in 10 years at least. We're not even close. Every time people start freaking out about the AI apocalypse, i tend to point out that to my knowledge, there's no learning style AI that's beaten a mario game, especially in a real "human" style (play through each level and learn them). I've seen an AI that can beat mario 1 this way, but it doesn't "learn", it just "brute forces" by trying random inputs, and then save state reloading if it gets a bad output (dies/gets stuck), and then does thousands of those games in parallel. And this ONLY works with mario 1 in part because "go right" is ALWAYS correct. Take any further mario game, where more vertical/backwards exploration is a thing, and its not even possible (mario 3 for example). It would be trivial of course to just program it to beat every game and get everything, by literally programming the correct inputs (literally a tas) but a task that is expected to be doable by a young human child is, again to my minimal knowledge of amateur research, not even remotely within the realm of possible for modern AI.
- pcthrowaway 4y ago
  Is it far-fetched to think that AI animating comic books / manga into cartoons is that far away?
  - Eji1700 4y ago

int_19h 4y ago

At the end of the day, either AI art is "good enough" (whatever your criteria are - "novelty", "soul" etc), or not. If it's not, then human-made art will continue to exist, to the extent there's demand for it. But if AI really is that good at art, it would seem that it's not really a problem from the perspective of society at large. It would be a problem for artists who rely on art as their source of income, but that's something that is fairly easy to solve, since all it takes is money.

kookamamie 4y ago
In my estimate, the common joe cannot distinguish between "real" and AI-generated art today. We're only seeing the first generation of AIs right now with the tech such as Midjourney, DALL-E 2, Imagen and Parti. I think it's pretty presumptuous to assume this trajectory would not continue to the point where most people would have a hard time identifying AI-generated images from real ones. My work is in this area and I absolutely foresee some industries/arts getting decimated by the upcoming research in these topics - however, it's pretty hard to put the genie back in the bottle at this stage.
- int_19h 4y ago
  > it's pretty hard to put the genie back in the bottle at this stage. The real question is, why would we want to, if the genie is truly that good?
- optimalsolver 4y ago
  *Average Joe, just FYI.
- lerchmo 4y ago
  The awareness for Dall-E / Midjourney is exploding. These tools are incredibly compelling and things like game art will definitely be generated by AI's in the near future. The possibilities are barely explored.
jrumbut 4y ago
Leonardo da Vinci didn't just pick up a paint brush, knock out the Mona Lisa, and call it a career. He built his skills as an apprentice in workshops doing background figures and lesser commissions. Later artists (to the present day) have created prints and works for clients. It's this work that creates the opportunity for masterpieces to happen. If that market goes away, the top end will be affected. I'm not sure things like fellowships and residency programs can recreate this by just throwing money at the problem. There is something unique about the pressures of having to be bold enough to stand out from the crowd but accessible enough for broad appeal. I'm not sure there's anything to be done, but I think we should recognize something is going to be lost here.

shams93 4y ago

Well conceptual artists get a big boost you used to need to have a budget to hire artisans to build out your ideas now all it takes is an app.

esyir 4y ago

I'll add in that sculpture too might see challenge, thought it's materials might see resistance for some time. 3d Printing is already at a state where the output is of extremely high detail, and still on it's ascent (resin printing specifically). While not a like-for-like comparison, it's seen heavy use in favor of traditional sculpting in multiple industries, such as miniature production, where it completely replaces or heavily reduces the use of the traditional skillset.

mxkopy 4y ago

There's no algorithm that generates artistic meaning. These neural nets allow you to employ arbitrary styles and techniques, but no AI can't come up with meaningful messages on its own...yet I imagine at its height, AI would make "commodity art" less valuable. But stuff like Rhythm 0, Black Square, The Lighthouse; that sort of art, by definition, can't be generated. Maybe we'll start valuing the more obscure stuff, not dissimilar to how I value the Google result that actually shows the Julia error I'm getting that only 3 people have seen more than the docs page that matches a quarter of the string I pasted directly from the terminal

atemerev 4y ago
You just need to set up a generalized adversarial model that optimizes for meaning!
mkaic 4y ago
I'd agree with you, but I have yet to come across a salient, non-circular definition of "meaning" in this context that makes it somehow unobtainable by robots. What is the meaning you speak of? This isn't meant to come across as snarky either, I'm genuinely curious to hear your thoughts.
- mxkopy 4y ago
  I think of meaning in terms of Saussure's sign and signified. "The Earth orbits around the sun" for example, is literally a string of characters. As a sign, however, its correspondent signifier could be a diagram of the solar system or something like that. In general meaning is the parts of an experience that are salient to its representation as a sign. It's a sign's signified. Robots lack an embodied experience that would be necessary for them to understand human meanings. They don't know what it feels like to step on a Lego, so a whole class of memes and meanings are unavailable to them as a result. There are probably things that we, as humans, don't know that we feel but still impart meaning. It would be very hard to get a robot to say something like "as the blood rushed to my ears" in a truly meaningful way. Most who end up using that phrase in a sentence don't use its full meaning when thinking about it (so there's higher than normal pressure in the head, etc) but if pressed can expound on it in a way that would be obviously different than a robot's (GPT3 would say, the meaning of this sentence is [0.5435, 24.2352, 1.3245], nearby sentences I've seen have embeddings [1.5532, 0.3552, 4.2442])

bennyg 4y ago

I loved this comment so much, I had to toss the first sentence into a DALL-E Mini renderer. It came up with this: https://imgur.com/a/P6SPhlH https://imgur.com/a/P6SPhlH. This one left me with the most sense of existential dread that I get out of your viewpoint for how digital art evolves.

hef19898 4y ago
That is scary...
FartyMcFarter 4y ago
Looks like Stephen Merchant.
wseqyrku 4y ago
That is really, all of that.
personalidea 4y ago
[Stable Diffusions interpretation of the second sentence](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1006094456799363082/1009598950375948358/some_days_im_very_scared_other_days_i_figure_ill_just_go_with_the_flow_and_not_worry_too_much_about_a_future_i_cant_control._-n_4_-g_-S_3206181553_ts-1660777524_idx-0-0..png https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1006094456799363082...)

archagon 4y ago

An AI could make something look like a Picasso, but it could never invent cubism. Without thought behind it, it is just advanced regurgitation.

freetime2 4y ago
Could an AI, and some selective process (think YouTube algorithm) over billions of iterations evolve cubism?
sp527 4y ago
> An AI could make something look like a Picasso, but it could never invent cubism. I wouldn't bet on this
lerchmo 4y ago
"Never" and "AI" in the same sentence requires a high level of confidence in a specific future. I don't see why AI of the future couldn't generate a mind with all of the complexity and life experience (simulated) that Picasso was inspired by. Do that a trillion times and we might get things even cooler than cubism.

hef19898 4y ago

Your last paragraph is one potential use for blockchain that migjt actually work. Assuming a manually taken picture (regardless if digital or film) has some inherent value that an AI recreation does not, using blockchain to proof an actual person took that picture on site serves a purpose. Personally, I think those "orginals" have value. AI could have an impact on digital art (besides using it optimize digital pictures in Lightroom), social media (why go to places for likes if that can be had by creating a deep fake, it does link back to the point about "originals" so) and the like. That being said, forgery, staging and other shenenigans have a long history in photography. As wr talk art, as long as people are ooen about it it's fine. It becomes a problem if art work is sold as something it is not.

mkaic 4y ago
While I agree with your sentiment, I don't see why this couldn't be accomplished with just standard cryptographic hashing verification based off of, say, a scan of the artist's iris salted with a timestamp that is then encoded into the file. What do you think a blockchain would add to it?

GoblinSlayer 4y ago

Sure, some artists, like Glen Cook, can be replaced by AI, but honestly they are already not quite readable.