Scholar

Can you actually respond to a single thing I am saying instead of trying to mind-read me so you don't have to engage? I clearly have shown how you are wrong about multiple things you just claimed, and just ignore that? Have you no integrity? Admit you were wrong, and be a little more humble. If you think these AI's will not significantly damage artists potential to generate profit, when they literally take the images of artists and make it so those AI's can generate images of that same style within seconds and for free, you are just delusional. Markets work by supply and demand, and you just made the supply free. No way that will not affect profits. You actually cannot have a discussion of substance, all you can do is talk about everyone elses psychology like some sort of cult leader. And you sneaky weasel! I didn't even notice it, but you moved the goalpost. We never were talking about making AI's illegal or anything of the sort. I am saying that using copyrighted images as training data is unethical. You can still create AI, you just have to do it ethically. That way, there is business for artists and the AI creators. How is that not fair? Why would that be unreasonable? These people are taking the images of everyone without compensation and generating billions of dollars of value with it, while probably putting most of those artists out of jobs in the near future. You really think that it's sane to say that is just fine and dandy?

This is not true Leo. Most models have been trained on LAION, including Stable Diffusion and I am pretty sure Midjourney, too. https://laion.ai/blog/laion-400-open-dataset/ The Dataset is basically just random images grabbed from the internet, independent of copyright. The Company that is working on Stable Diffusion funded the creation of this databases with fair-use exemption because it was a research purpose only dataset. They then uses that dataset to train the open-source model Stable Diffusion, disregarding any potential violation of copyright laws. Stability AI, the company, is now valued at 1 billion dollars. No, my brain does not contain pixel perfect images of artists that I then use to create art. That's not how you learn art, lol. Jesus Christ Leo, how can you spout such complete nonsense with such confidence? When artists learn from other artist, they look at certain images and look at them through their subjective lense. They might use some solutions to visual problems they are working on, but they don't literally look at the image and somehow absorb it and can then draw that image. That's not how any of this works. The amount of information you can take from an individual piece of art, is extremely limited, that's why it's considered fair use. Humans do not sample art, they reference it. But like I said, you are so deeply ignorant of this topic that it's not really worth to have this discussion with you. You just have no clue what you are even talking about. And you don't even have a good grasp of fair use, here you go: https://support.google.com/legal/answer/4558992?hl=en Take a look at Nr. 4. Taking inspiration from the work of other artist and learning from them is sustainable and fair use because it does not render the initial work valueless. No artist in the world can learn how to draw like Kim Jung Gi, no matter how long he tries. There will always be discrepencies. The way artist create their art is as unique to them as their handwriting or their voice, it's an extremely individualized process. And even if you tried to copy another artist and were successful, you would still have to compete with him in the market. With AI that is fundamentally not the case, as soon as you appropriate the image of another artist, you render that artist uncompetitive, by means of his own work. That is fundamentally not fair us. And it's not inspiration, nor reference. It is sampling, it is the using of the data, pixel by pixel, of the work to create a product you call AI. In a world in which AI exists, all that matters is the latent space that AI has to generate art. The latent space that AI has will be determined by the sets of images it was able to use. Meaning, the images are everything, they are everything of value in this new system. The capacity of the AI is directly related to the images used. So, that's where all the values is, that is the oil of the 21st century. If people can just grab these images for free, which are like I said, extremely valuable and essential to these models, you discourage people from actually further exploring visual information the way artists do. The only reason why you have such amazing art on Midjourney and StableDiffusion is because of the art it is derived from. Not compensating artists for that, and stealing the IP is just theft. It has nothing to do with fair use. And like I said above, the artists fundamentally have license to that data, to that metaphorical oil. To compare AI to humans is just absurd. I don't know where you are getting your information from, but you really need to put more effort into finding better sources. And AI is not a brain at all. You actually need to prove that before you throw out all copyright laws. Does the AI change when it is creating new images? If I never look at another piece of art or image again, and I just sit down and draw for 10.000 hours, I will improve signifantly. An AI does not improve as it creates more images. It's not even remotely close to a brain, you are just so deeply misinformed. And the fact that you are spouting this misinformation with this kind of confidence undermines you as a person in my eyes. That's just disappointing. And my brain can create art out of thing air, that is what makes the brain fundamentally different from these AI's. These AI's can only express themselves in the latent space between certain datapoints. I, as a human, can be a caveman from tens of thousands of years ago, look at a bear, and go to a cave and draw an abstraction of that bear. Something the AI cannot do. It can only draw with the latent space of two images, and is extremely prone to overfitting. https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.03860 Please don't be an ignoramus on this, just admit that you are talking out of your depths. You're behaving like an NFT bro. And like I said, these AI's do not mimic art creation, they mimic if anything certain parts of visualization, which is an unconscious process. But that is a different topic and I have no hopes you have even the basic understanding to have that conversation. It's not good for creativity if all work can just be appropriated and used without any fair use consideration. And clearly, you don't even know what fair use entails and what it's limitations are. You don't give a shit about any of this, all you want is virtue signal about your supposed high consciousness position of seeing the progress in everything. Not everything can be just blindly accepted as progress, especially when it would be so easy to do all of this ethically. The artist have license to their images, and you can't just use those images against their consent to create a product. Capitalism only works when property laws were protected. That's how capitalism started. If you don't protect people's properties, they won't give a fuck about being productive. Why would I, as an artist, ever release my art that I worked decades on to refine, that would be a unique addition to the latent space of the AI, if I gain literally nothing from that?

I don't think so. Progress is good if it enhances our life's. Blind technological progress for the sake of making everything effortless and replacing humans is not wisdom, it's just blindly following todays hyper-achievement and results oriented paradigm. It's just boring to discuss with you when you are more keen on creating a strawman rather than engaging in this discussion in an insightful manner. It is obvious that you have no interest in expanding the scope of your perspective. I never said I was against technology, artists, including me, have benefitted and used technological progress. We are in fact the people who are naturally at the forefront of innovation, and we in fact are the ones who inspire the future of mankind, by creation visions of those potential futures. I'm not arrogant at all, I specifically told you why I think the way this technology is being employed is unethical and unwise. Are there ways to employ and use this technology with wisdom and love? Of course there are. But using nuclear weapons just because we can invent them, and cloning people just because it's progress, is not smart. Instead of arguing with things I have never said, why don't you engage with the substance of what I have been saying? In fact, if you want to be the one drawing art on caves, the attitude you hold is the best way to get there. I'm trying to make a rule about not engaging people who are not having discussion in good faith, so I will give you one more chance. Next time, instead of creating conclusions from position you presume I hold, I want you to make an effort to actually understand my position in a charitable manner or ask clarifying questions. I never disputed that artists are going to be using AI. Improving your workflow does not actually mean giving expression to your genuine imagination. Of course artists will scramble and try to adopt these technology. Artists are forced to adopt all kinds of creativity-destroying and soul-crushing processes to make a living in the highly competitive environments we exist in today. I don't think that extends their creative capacities, I just think it creates more output, and more output is more profit for the companies. Just look at most veterans in the entertainment industry. I bet you don't know the name of a single one, but let me tell you, they are not a happy bunch for the most part, and even though they are creating amazing imagery, they are completely burned out from the amount of images they have to output. Now, the expectation will rise, and everyone will be forced to adopt AI. AI art will benefit a specific set of artist who focus on a specific part of their creativity, whose way of creating and whose particular biases lend themselves to the way AI's function today. Like I said, for the companies, these AI's are wonderful. Cheap art is good art to them. But in regards to connecting people to consciousness and love, these AI's will not benefit the creatives. They will do the opposite, they will disconnect them from their self, and instead of their own imagination, the AI will be imagining the images for them. Right, I'm sure you are an art lover.

Oh look, at least someone agrees:

The argument would be that the company made an active effort to pursuit certain kinds of speech because of fear of public backlash, where as the topic of child exploitation is not really part of the public consciousness and therefore not worth pursuiting as actively as contemporary cultural issues. AI's don't make independent decisions, they make decision based on training data and so forth. To make an AI better at detecting child exploitation takes ressources that you might not even think of investing in that area, because you are focused on investing them in areas you evaluate as more pressing to the interests of the company.

AI's are not stealing, they aren't doing anything consciously at all. They aren't referencing images either, they are sampling them. If I work as a concept artist for some big company, I am not allowed to just use photo's that I don't have a license to in a photobashing process, even if the end results becomes unrecognizable. Fundamentally, the violation of rights occurs at the point of training these MLA's, because you are using data that you have no license for to create a product. If I as an artist create 100 images, those images are my data, and I ought to have the right to sell the licenses for these images for others to create MLA-based product. Or I might not want for people to use my data at all, and that should be fine too. Or maybe I want to create my own AI with my own images, so that I can actually contribute to the evolution of art by expanding the latent space of the AI's. Instead, everyone can take my art for free and then create product with it, which then they can sell for money? That's insanity. These MLA's run on visual information, so that visual information is literally the oil they burn to fuel the imagination of the AI's. That's oil I have ownership over, because I have created that oil. The comparison between artists references other art or photos, and AI's that are products designed and created by people, and do not reference, but sample the actual data I have ownership over, is simply not apt. This is just so stupid. Imagine I took your videos and reuploaded them, telling you "Well, I am Leo, we are all god, therefore I created this video in the first place, so I can use it!". I think you are the one with the Double Standard here, because if someone appropriated your intellectual property, you'd be furious. AI's can exist, but we ought to do this ethically. We know that AI's do not reference art like humans do, they don't reference at all. They are a set trained model based on certain data they was sampled, not referenced. Either way, the AI fundamentally is not an individual making choices. The way it creates is fundamentally different from how humans create art, any expert on machine learning will tell you this. Your attitude in regards to this is just so irresponsible, but at this point that does not surprise me, because you have demonstrated this kind of immaturity more than once now. How pathetic I am that I am even engaging with your red herring of trying to make this about spirituality. Utterly absurd. I will not be using tools as they currently stand. If someone will create an AI that is based on ethically acquired data, I will gladly experiment with it. And AI is, as it currently stands, not really a tool for me. It does not actually extend my creative capacity, it replaces it. But again, people who are unfamiliar with the creation of visual art will think that we just shit out images after we quickly imagine them in our heads. That's not how art is created. All you guys seem to care about is the destination, when the journey in the creation of art is one of the most essential things about it. AI will not make visual art more valuable, it will actually trivialize it completely. What you thought of as a beautifully painted image before, which you would have felt awe for, will now be nothing to you, because you will get used to it as a standard. The experience of beauty and awe you feel when seeing a beautiful piece of art does not come from some sort of intrinsic value that art has. It comes from the contrast between the mundane and the beautiful. If everyone can shit out master pieces at the click a buttom, it is no longer a master piece. More, Faster, No Mastery, No effort, Destination over Journey. That's all I am seeing here, and it will do as much for mankind as Mcdonalds and Hollywood Action Blockbusters do. The artist who spend dozens of hours to create pieces filled with intention will see no more recognition, because their work was appropriate by a machine that can shit out soulless visual noise that you cannot even know whether is plagiarized or not, by the millions. I want everyone to be drawing, to explore their own imagination and give actual expression to it. Rather than that, we are seeing peoples imagination being replaced by machines, and the consciousness-connecting process of creating art will be replaced by a hyperautistic, results-oriented process that turns images into something as trivial as breathing. The entire point of being an artist is to be immersed in the process of creation. Something I wish everyone could get a taste of. But now, with people having the option to tell AI's what to imagine, to tell AI's what to create, people will not pursuit that anymore. Why don't we create AI's that watch movies for you and play games, to summarize them so that you yourself don't have to watch them? Why don't we create AI's that experience life for you and then summarize to you how it was, and all the conclusions it arrived at that you no longer have to think about. Because that's what life is all about, arriving at the destination! It's not like that if you have too much of a good thing, it could possibly become a negative! I'm just blown away by how much people on this forum lack wisdom and consciousness, including their leaders.

That's how the machines get you, everyone has a carrot.

Imagine your original ancestor on earth, the first microbial life. Imagine all of it's descendents, as they evolved. As they started to feel and experience, to see and smell. When the first onced started walking on the earth. When forests began covering the earths, and your ancestors, every single one of them, was successful in reproducing. Imagine all of their struggles. Imagine all their suffering, all their love, all their fear, their happiness, their anger and hatred. All the adventures they lifed, all the 5 mass extinctions they survived, even the one that shook the earth and wiped out most dinosaurs. Billions of years of struggle and suffering, all of that was experienced. Put that into perspective, how much death and misery that is, how life was merely survival, struggling to stay alive long enough to procreate. And now imagine all those that failed at this task. All those who who went extinct, who did have no descendents. All the evolutionary pathways that lead nowhere, just so a few of them could go on. Now, imagine all the worlds with life in this galaxy, and all the galaxies in this universe. This process of evolution, it is taking place in the same way in the entirety of the cosmos. Most planets will perish, so that a few can go one. And in the end, everyone will perish. Nobody will go on. The entire universe will disappear into nothing. And beyond this universe, there are more universes. Infinite of them, all going through the same process. It could be that for this universe alone, it might take 1.7×10^106 years to perish, that's a number with 106 zeros. And now imagine all this time blinking away in a second. In each universe, possibly millions or trillions of civilizations falling and rising. Imagine a multiverse, fillied with an endless number of blinks, like small fire crackers, each and every one of them them a universe being born and dying. And that is still one infinitely small part of infinity. When you perish, like all your ancestors did, you will return to the beginning and end of it all. From there, you will realize that you have been all of it, and that you are going to be all of it, for all of eternity.

The greatest challenge of the 21st century will be to grapple with the the effects machines have on us and the world. The internet is the wild west, and the harm it is doing to individual minds is unfathomable. We expect catastrophy to stem from war, climate change, disease. But in the end, it is possible that it will be our minds that will erode, until we are not longer capable of upholding civilization in the way we currently are. All the lessons that will be learned, imagine how wise those who will persist are going to be, and how foolish we will look in contrast. So foolish, we could not even see the obvious coming. We will look like people who swam in their own feces, wasting our precious lifes away, doing nothing but seeking endless stimulation. And even those of us who knew it could not resist, because the machines had learned how to erode our resistance.

It's not a question about robustness. I feel like you just refuse to contemplate this topic in any serious manner, your analysis is so incredibly surface level, which is very disappointing to me. The difference in AI and human learning does not lie in degree of sophistication, but rather in kind. The AI is already more sophisticated in certain aspects than a human mind is, but like with calculators, the impressive results are misleading. Just because a calculator can solve math equations in seconds whereas a humans might take days, does not actually mean the calculator is being a mathematician. What's impressive about the human mind is not that it can calculate quickly equations, but rather that the human mind actually understands and explores math itself. There is a substance, a qualia to math, that is not present in the calculator. The calculator fundamentally does not know what a number is, nor what an equation is. It fundamentally doesn't understand anything at all, because understanding is qualia, it is consciousness, a specific fascet of existence. In the same manner, the creation of visual art is not merely the process of visual information processing and pattern recognition. The creation of visual art involves all manner of qualia, of consciousness. AI is more akin to visualization. Close your eyes, think "apple". When you see that apple in your mind's eye, the process behind that took your own kind of internal visualization system, your own "image AI". That's not art, that's just visualization. A calculator is extremely precise and dependable and fast. AI is extremely precise and fast. it's knowledge, like the knowledge of any computer, far exceeds the knowledge of any human. A computer can memorize an image pixel by pixel, trillions of those images as long as it has access to a database. Now, those are all tremendous advantages that a human does not have. Yet, even a four year old child can do something that no AI can do. If you show them an image of a cat, I can give the child a pen and paper, and it will draw me a stick figure of a cat. For sticks, a body, maybe a tail and a circle for a head. What happened there is not merely more sophisticated than what any machine can currently do, it in fact is different in nature. But of course, if your contemplation of visual art never exceeded the idea of "image that makes me feel fuzzy inside!", you will of course confuse what neural networks are doing for art. You are underestimating the wisdom of God, my friend. Your mind is too focused on the shiny things, and it is blind to the essence of intelligence. And you seem to still think there is a distinction between human and God. There is no such thing as God's creative vs human creativity. It is the same process. How foolisht is it to accuse artists to steal from god, when they are stealing from noone but themselves. And that is the prime reason why you should at least have some skepticism towards how this technology is used. The greatest purpose of art is to connect us directly to the intelligence of the divine, and to realize that it is ones own creativity. That is a direct connection to god. A practice of beauty and love, that everyone who can pick up a pencil can do. That's why the artists have always been the people who tended towards spirituality. There is a difference between creating something that stems directly from your experience, a connection you can probably not appreciate, because you are not a visual artist. You cannot see that AI is disconnecting us from our own vision, and replacing it with it's own vision. The artist does no longer say "apple", to then close his eyes and connect to his direct experience. To then attempt to represent that vision, and in the process discover things about himself, his own sense of beauty that he can share with the world. No, instead he types apple, and let's the AI do the job. He will think "Oh wow, that looks much better than what I would have ever imagined myself!". There is a tragedy in that that you lack the wisdom and experience to see. It will take some time for mankind to realize what it has lost and what dire consequences that had. But that is how it seems we must learn, through suffering, through seperation.

Oh my, I don't know if I have the patience to communicate my entire take on this situation, there is a lot of nuance and insight you can gain from this. I think both Destiny and mrgirl are partially right and partially wrong about their analysis of each other and the situation, and this conflict has become a perfect illustration of the limitation of Tier 1 thinking, or lack of Tier 2 integration. You can learn a lot about the mrgirls operating system, it's unique advantages as a lense, and the limitation in regards to how mrgirl's ego relates to that system. You can learn about the limitation of Destiny's charitability, and how it makes him resistant to genuinely novel perspectives. You can learn about the natural limitations and traps of significant intelligence and social competence. You can learn about ego attachments, how they relate to the mastery of skill and yet in the same manner to the handicap of that same skill. In general you can learn a lot about self-deception. It's a goldmine of insight, because we are observing two highly intelligent minds resolving a conflict. It can teach you a lot about yourself. I would have never thought, for example, that genuine charitability and steelmanning of other perspectives could lead you to being unable to see new perspectives, and that this dynamic might be worsened if you are more intelligent. That's counter intuitive, but I think if you have paid attention to Destiny from the beginning and how he interacted with mrgirl, this dynamic become very clear. I am not as much interested in the game that is played, but rather the minds that are playing it. So that's the basic overview of some of the things I have focused on, I cannot go into detail with all of them because it would be too time consuming, but I can explore some if you have more questions.

Is that so?

Celestial Workshop? Is this paywalled? What happened?

I want a video seeing Leo talk in the alien language, if we don't get that soon I'll be majorly disappointed.

mrgirl is not claiming that Destiny is doing something illegal, he specifically is making a moral claim. If you were to insult your spouse all the time, that is not illegal, but that might constitute abuse. And mrgirl thinks if you publically demean someone with the amount of power Destiny holds while secretly engaging with them sexually behind the scenes, that it constitutes sexual abuse. mrgirl already made the case for why he thinks he is the best person to investigate this, he explained it in the orbiter interrogation stream. Also: Nice Questatements.

That's not what I said, but here is a nice simplification that should help you understand what's going on: Read the entire thread.

It really is tragic, but it was fairly predictable with the limitations of mrgirls philosophy and general dysfunctionality and Destiny's sociopathic tendencies. It was a recipe for disaster, and it seems like both sides are completely incapable of reading the other.

Thank you, seems like you are the only one who took the time to read it. Yes, the problem is misusage and complete lack of ethics because of how excited everyone is for this new technology. It's so funny, but this really shows you that humanity has not become more wise with technology whatsoever. This kind of attitude will be our doom sooner or later, if we don't wise up.

Did you watch the video? What AI does and what humans do when creating and getting inspired by art is fundamentally not the same. The AI's basically take an image and relate certain keywords to the shapes found within that image. When you generate a new image, it will create shapes based on on a seed and other parameters. It will generate a series of images, and at each point of the image it will ask the network of relationships, in relationship to the prompt, what kind of shape is most likely to exist next to the shapes currently existing on the image. It does not understand what it is drawing, it does not understand composition, anatomy, object relations and so forth. It has no interprative lense, it is not inspired, it is not studying art. It is literally taking the shapes within an image, extracting them into a network of relationships, and using that exact set of information in the process of image generation. Again, all that is happening is that it is looking at the shapes it has created (most likely given the networks of relationships related to certain keywords) and then iterating and saying "What is the most likely shape that I have extracted from the sets of images that would be placed next to all the shapes currently existing on this canvas?". That's fundamentally different from how humans create or learn from other artists. And in the music industry this is very clear. Because of the lack of complexity, the AI's would commit copy right infringements if they were to train on copy righted music. That's simply because music is less complex, and rhythmical relationship are far easier to note and analyze. Meaning that, with music AI's, it would become very apparent that all the AI does is say "If this were music made by artist X, what is the most likely rhythm that music would have? What is the most likely series of notes that would exist next to this set of notes?". Because individual parts of copy righted music can be copyrighted, unlike with art, you would very quickly infringe on the rights of those artists. Because all the AI does is use those very information it has found in the initial training set, and use that to generate new information that will be the most "most likely result" based on the prompts given. For this process it is not inspired by the initial training set, it is literally using the network of relationships of shapes found within the images it was trained on. So no, it's not what is happening with AI art whatsoever. And making it seem like that is just flawed thinking. Take the example of recently deceased Kim Jung Gi. Here is his artwork: Here is an image generated by an AI trained on his art: If you look closer at the image, you will notice it completely lacks coherence. That's because it is not actually creating a scene, with people in in a busy market place. It is creating shapes based on training data that are most likely to exist next to other shapes. It doesn't know what a head is, what a line is, what a person is or what a market is. All it does is put down shapes based on a prompt, then put down more shapes that it feels most likely would exist at that point given the information that is related to the initial prompt. Fundamentally, the AI cannot create novel information. If you give the AI images of all objects in the universe, other than art, it will never be capable of ending up at where Kim Jung Gi is here. It will never be able to draw a stick figure. Why? Because it does not know what a stick figure is, it does not know what a human is, it does not know what any of the objects are. All it knows is visual relationships correlated to certain keywords, and even that it doesn'T truly know, like a calculator doesn't know what math or numbers are. This is 40.000 year old art. The AI could never create this if it did not have these shapes in it's training data. It it had photos of all animals, all objects, all it could create is photorealistic images. It would never venture into stylization, because those shapes do not exist in it's training set. There can be no abstraction without understanding. What this means is that the AI cannot ever generate new art that is not a combination of previously existing art. This is not true for humans, because humans do abstract, and humans do have understanding, and because the process of art creation is fundamentally different in humans than in AI's. While a calculator might imitate and be very proficient at math, it is not doing what the human is doing when he is calculating something. If AI was to reign, and somehow develope enough coherence to actually create genuinely coherent art, then it would halt the evolution of art, for the reasons I have mentioned above. If AI art existed before art styles were invented, no art styles would have ever existed. Why would it? People would have never created the art, and put in thousands of hours to create abstractions and idealizations and so forth. What AI art will do, is flood the internet with art which only has human spirit within it because it is imitating the art of people who have human spirit in them. If you look at the art above, you can see the human spirit not because someone has learned from another artist, but because it was a human who created it. A human who knew what he was creating, a human who could abstract, understand, and then engage in the creation of genuinely novel information. This is not just because the AI's are not yet ready yet, but because they are not individuated consciousness. In other words, the reasons why the AI cannot create new information is because it's metaphysical limitations. But for that to be discovered scientifically, it might take hundreds if not thousands of years. For as long as that is not the case, we will stumble in the dark, and be imitating forces on nature and deluding ourselves we have surpassed the wisdom of hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Another point would be very easy to make, even if I was wrong about everything above. The difference between an artist getting inspired and creating art is that the artist does not nullify the value of the artist he is studying. I can study Iain Mccaig for my entire life. One, I will never be truly able to create art like Iain Mccaig, I will always have individual biases within my art that I will never get rid of, because I am human. I will never be able to replace the effort Iain Mccaig puts into his art, meaning even if I studied decades to copy Iain Mccaigs style perfectly, I would still have to put in the effort to create the art, therefore not nullifying his life work and his value as an artist. If I was a God, and I could look at all artists and copy their styles effortlessly, then create trillions of images that nobody can compete with, rendering them all homeless, that would be unethical. The only reason why we allow other artists to get "inspired", by each other is because of human limitations, and because the way you study art is fundamentally different from the way AI's do it. You would, of course, know this if you were an artist. Ever artist that studies the greats of the past and present, cannot help but add his own voice to that art. He is not just taking these images and saying "Oh look, I have these shapes now, what is the most likely shapes next to the shape if this was a drawing by Iain Mccaig?". The fact that people are framing these things as comparable is mindblowing to me, and it shows me that schools have failed in educated people about art, but that is not very surprising to me considering the level of art education I experience myself in school. An artist will understand the process of other artist, sure they will get inspired, maybe they will try to understand the way certain shapes are expressed, but humans are humans. We cannot help but inject our own voice into what we create. Nobody can become a second Iain Mccaig, because nobody is Iain Mccaig. To be Iain Mccaig, you have to have the genetics and the life path of Iain Mccaig. That's what makes his art what it is. If he had different dispositions, his style would look differently. And with his dispositions he added new, novel information to the world of art. He is not just a mixture of previous art styles. His art contains an imprint of his own unique consciousness, his unique sense of appeal, his unique way of understanding the world, his unique way of learning how to draw and how to try to create the illusion of life, probably even the unique anatomy of his body. All of these are factors, limitations, which create new art that humans can relate to. Without people like him, these AI's could do nothing but photorealism, because that's all that would exist. Photos of objects.

The argument for this was made in the video. With the music AI this is already the case, because there it is more obvious that the AI is actually stealing certain segments of the copyrighted music. The same is true for the visual AI's, just that you cannot copy right the complexities of shapes and compositions because visual art is more complex than music. It doesn't really matter whether or not it's going to be difficult, in the end you are stealing copy righted art so you train your models for commercial use. Obviously this is the most profitable way of doing it, if the lawmakers don't stop this madness. The point is that it is unethical, and that the lawmakers ought to be doing something about it, and for that you need public support. The purpose of the video was to make arguments why we should pursuit these ethical issues. Of course, if you give a corporation the chance to enslave you, they will do it, because they only care about money. But right now it's about making the ethical argument and getting people to agree on it, so that we can strive to create new laws.

But Leo is not supposed to lead you, because nobody can lead you to God. That's not possible. Whatever insight he has, it was not some blueprint he was given that made him attain that, it was specific conditions within his mind. It would be the work of a teacher to create such conditions in others, rather than simply telling them what awaits them. That's my opinion. No way Leo would have been like you guys and listened to some guy who talks about space rabbits and been like "Yes sensei, that's amazing, tell us more!". Being open minded is one thing, but you guys have like no distance. You accept it as truth immediately, and you know it. I don't even find what he said so radical, it's more that his behavior is becoming unstable. And like I said I have my own theories why this happens and why it probably is almost necessitated with people on similar paths. But either way, you don't know if he has gone batshit crazy. He might have been an expert, and then maybe he took the wrong psychedelic and it burned a fuse in his brain that melted his mind in a way that is not condusive to "Truth". And maybe the same will happen to you, how would you know? Once that fuse is burned, there might be no going back.

Leo you are getting one layer deeper here, and confusing the two layers. When I say "The mountain is ugly!", I am doing the "world illusion building", that is a function of the ego. Then we have the metaphysical nature of the shapes of the mountain. And the metaphysical nature is different, because it contains Infinity. That Infinity, and the recognition of it, is different from the "world illusion building". And then the problem is if you zoom out completely, it is all the metaphysical thing again, and that's where we get into the Impossibility and the Deeming. Imagine it like a sandwich, the middle layer is the ego mind doing it's world illusion building, but the aspects it is building with is fueled from the beneath by Infinity. But really, the interconnectedness and the workings of the ego itself are also Infinity, because the very glue that creates the illusions are made of the same substance. And that is what you might call imagination, and one of infinite ways of looking at it.

It doesn't make sense because the entire endeavor of language is to weave these connections, that's how concepts functions. For example, say, a cat. Now, the concept of a cat is the shape of a cat, the color of the cat, the sound of a cat, the feeling of a cat and so forth. Notice how all these things are their own separate, distinct substances of existence, completely different from each other. The function of a concept is to say "This is one thing!", connecting all of those things together to create the illusion of one object, or objecthood in general. Another way i direct delusion, which is something like saying "The mountain is beautiful!". The mountain is just shapes, and the beauty is another distinct substance of existence. The function of language here is so to melt those two things together, until your mind is convinced that these things are actually one. At some point you just think the mountain is beautiful, not that you connected two experiences together. This is especially relevant in regards to moral evaluation, because that's how morality works. We have a perception of shouldness/goodness/evilness, and then we link them to other experiences, until our mind deems them to be one. Then we say, certain things are evil, and we become immersed in that illusion until we cannot see it's true nature. So that's why it doesn't make sense to really speak of ths recognition, all you can do is point to it until it is recognized. All language functions this way. The reason why existence is impossibility is recognized if you look at the nature of existence. You will recognize it's impossibility, and the Infinite Intelligence and Power that makes it arise. We are discussing this because Leo lacks insight and integration into these things, and it is frustrating that he keeps strawmanning and misunderstanding me, because of his attachment to being a leader. I can see that you are not genuine in your wishes, you just seek to mock me and undermine my perspective. I am not jealous of Leo, but I am frustrated with him, and I think you feel threaten by me challenging him.