DrugsBunny

@Tyler Robinson An unforgivable oversight on my part, you're correct.

Just because the AI is ultimately good for making artistic expression more accessible doesn't mean there aren't negative aspects. It seems you're completely ignoring the capacity for Midjourney to literally copy and steal an orthodox artist's personal style and apply it to and endless array of newly generated images. In such scenarios the original artist would not even need to be credited nor compensated for their contribution to the AI's creation. There are obviously severe negative aspects to this technology, nobody is denying the positive value, but it's good not to be entirely insensitive to the detriments this imposes towards ordinary artists.

From this post it's completely ambiguous whether you're for or against kids transitioning genders. Here's my response if you're against it: Did somebody tell you that parents can selfishly dictate that a kid must get sex reassignment surgery merely to appease the parents? More egregiously, did you actually believe whoever told this to you? Kids are subjected to extensive psychological screening to determine the necessity for sex reassignment. A parent can't just have their kid transition on a whim. Here's my response if you're in favor of it: *Peacefully ignores your post, as there is no asinine drivel that needs scolding*

@Danioover9000 Yes, the arguments Vaush makes here are brutal refutations of our friend @AtheisticNonduality's denunciations of my argument that this destroys the art market for orthodox artists. Vaush went in hard here and made even more refined arguments than what I presented, which is amusingly gratifying. I wonder if @AtheisticNonduality would still hit me up with 48 facepalm emojis after seeing that video.

Considering your previous temperament regarding how dreadfully incorrect my perspective on art marketability is, this seems like a rather emotionally charged response... Seems as if there's as tinge of actual contempt towards orthodox artists, unless I'm misinterpreting something. /imagine [prompt]: low ends of the human soul being affected by AI art Interesting. At least the lowly peasants of outdated artistry will be remembered with elegant flair.

It's a win for humanity, but for obsolete artists who were making money with orthodox artwork this is the death of their marketability. @Leo Gura Midjourney AI I take it? Lookin' good. But now that everyone and their mother can be a stunning artist I think it's offensively optimistic to deny that this drastically shifts the profitable market for artwork much to the disfavor of orthodox art creators.

You're acting as if a young boy just says "I think pink is cool" and an onslaught of indoctrinated leftists rushes to their front door wielding the nearest pair of rusty gardening shears to dismember their phallic manhood and duct tape a silicone pair of fake tits on their chest then throws a social justice parade. In actuality what happens is a youth with gender dysphoria is afforded extensive psychological screening to determine the necessity for what is clearly a life changing surgery. Once it is unambiguously determined that such a person would benefit from surgery, they are first afforded hormonal therapy which temporarily impedes puberty so the kid can later on make a more informed decision as to whether the actual surgery is something they are going to want. If not, they just stop taking the puberty blockers and literally no harm is done. Any other interpretation of this issue that does not resemble what I've just relayed is merely ideological bigotry. Socially punished? Yeah, just as you're subjecting yourself to social scrutiny by throwing around casual N bombs. Legally? Well that depends, are you an employer consistently subjecting an employee to harassment by continuously rejecting their identity and subjecting them to mental distress? Then yes, obviously. Because of views such as the ones I've just rebutted.

This thread is a vicious attack on my brain cells.

He loves black people, everyone! Nobody bat an eye at his tactless usage of racist slurs. The hits don't stop with this dude. Find me a single Romani person who doesn't consider "g*psy" a slur and I'll concede that using derogatory language towards marginalized groups is a gesture of love. You must absolutely adore Romani people.

My dude is so mad that he can't say the word. My deepest condolences sir. Must be tough having to restrain your relentless urges to throw around casual N bombs. I take it you'll be voting for Mr. Trump again this coming election; thank you sir for being a proud patriot, your country loves you.

The technological singularity is speculated to take place between 2040-2050. Before then, a relatively simple AI that creates visual art pieces can easily surpass that of a human, all it would need is an ability to select specific facets of the image, and further render them with more specificity. Even if it doesn't do this, the art market (just the ability to make money, I think you're not understanding that piece of my argument) will shift in the disfavor of obsolete artists. @Leo Gura Thanks. I mean that's just insane, the picture even includes all the pieces of discarded artwork on the ground as he hopelessly stares at the screen. Aha wtf seriously epic.

@Leo Gura Haha, epic. What settings are you using? I can't get mine to turn out that specific. Or maybe you're just a better AI artist.

@AtheisticNonduality Are you familiar with the concept of the "technological singularity"? You say it will "never" compete with artistic geniuses such as Manson, but a rudimentary/simplistic algorithm for doing such would be as follows: 1. Create a human mind, containing biases, thought-patterns, emotional dispositions. 2. Give the mind a virtual avatar, containing a hyper-realistic appearance and vocal tonality. 3. Have the virtual human create art. A sufficiently powerful computer could do this process with not just a single human, but an entire society with 7 billion instantiations of artificial human beings. Then just select for the 1000 top humans of a specific field/genre, and you will have a result that out-performs modern artistic geniuses. You could also give these virtual humans far greater capabilities than ordinary human beings. This sounds far-fetched but many things we enjoy today were inconceivable a few hundred years ago.

"Worldview" as defined by Oxford dictionary: "a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world." Apparently, my perspective that the art market would shift if AI out-performs humans enables a devastating refutation of my entire worldview. Wow, what a time to be alive! @Leo Gura That looks awesome, is that supposed to be you on DMT or something? Here's a prompt you might consider, "/imagine [prompt]: Devastated artist staring at computer screen in horror as AI annihilates the obsolete artist's marketability".

@Leo Gura Hey, I'm happy it exists, just look at this trippy ass avatar I made. It's great. But for artists specifically, and those who are making money off their art, I think this ruins the market for them. I never said anything about the benefits of this for humanity, so with that bit of info cleared up we're basically on the same page. But yes, given your logic, I was correct to point out that this sucks for artists who make money.

"it's almost like you didn't read all 7 pages of the thread!! /facepalm x48" Lol, you okay bud? Speaking of trucks, truck drivers will soon be replaced by automation when cars can drive themselves. So for truck drivers specifically this can't be a good outcome for them. That's all I'm saying. I think this applies to the art too.

@Leo Gura Yeah but dude, I'm talking about the marketability of an artist's work once the technology becomes indistinguishable from human art. Imagine if you could just take the result of an AI output, select a part of the image, label it as a human, an arm, a leg, an eye, then use another remastering rendition to finely tune that specific element of the image. No hand-drawn precision needed, and the market for art changes entirely.

@Leo Gura I don't know how you could say that for certain. A year ago I did not think this technology would be as good as it is today, in 10 years we may see progress that was entirely unforeseeable.

@thepixelmonk From the perspective of simply creating art for the purpose of selling it, it seems to me that somebody would rather use an AI than spend money on something that requires human intelligence. Yeah maybe it can expand ones art-making potential, but at the same time would this technology not shift the marketability of an artist's work? I think this is a net-negative from that perspective.

@thepixelmonk We can only hope so. Now I'm confused. I was the 3rd person here to take issue with your posts. It seems you just have a very particular hate-boner for me. Is it really an egregious character flaw that I try to correct asinine views when I see them? It's true, I make no effort to spare your emotions in my blunt retorts, but that is a temperament that I specifically employ against the lowest of the low regarding political views.

@Raptorsin7 I actually would never specifically target a certain user on this forum. If ANYBODY posted this, I would be here to rebut it. It just so happens you post a lot of stuff that I find worthy of criticism. Oooof, looks like you're wrong about that one. Proof: https://www.reddit.com/r/LivestreamFail/comments/b9l58h/politics_podcast_takes_a_turn_scuffed_podcast/ What exactly makes me a degenerate? The fact that I have progressive politics? Seems like a really tenuous standard for throwing that word around so casually.

This is like the 3rd time I've seen you using your completed meditation retreat as a means to patronize others and place yourself on a pedestal. How does this not embarrass you? You get your politics from a literal neo-nazi like Nick Fuentes, so I think I still come out on top. Here's nick calling black people and jews degenerates. Funny to see you've picked up this tactic from him.

@zurew That much was obvious. If you take a closer look at your post, intentional or not, it suggests that you're siding with Nick Fuentes, because his views differ from what is commonly accepted. So saying "Just because ones views differ means they're the devil?" necessarily invites my interpretation of your post, no worries if you didn't catch that.

You're talking about a crass go-to phrase used by people seeking to justify pedophilia, and trying to validate it by invoking metaphysics about the illusory nature of time. Bruh where does Actualized find these people?

Of course not. It depends on the views. What you're describing is an embarrassingly crass simplification of moral denunciation. Here's Nick Fuentes coming out against the concept of interracial relationships. https://www.reddit.com/r/LivestreamFail/comments/b9l58h/politics_podcast_takes_a_turn_scuffed_podcast/ He refers to his fans as "Nickers" as a tactless means of alluding to a phonetically similar racial slur... He also uses the slur openly on his show which has been de-platformed from every major social media site. Here's Nick overwhelmed with excitement regarding republicans being openly racist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nuCO-4YIr8&t=128s He's an absolute banger where he confesses that Americans want a president who loves saying the N word. This is all par-for-the-course Nick Fuentes content, it didn't take long to find. There's much worse shit I could post if I actually cared to look for it.