Scholar

I have tried to make the blind see. The responses of you guys is so far off the mark that I have no more hope that I will ever be capable of communicating this to anyone. You are utterly stuck in your own perspectives.

It's not hypocritical, I have advocated for Leo to recognize what he is. I let nature be nature, and because I am part of that nature, part of the wisdom of God, I am here talking to you and writing this post. This is how the wisdom of God works, conversations are part of it, and even your knee-jerk reaction is part of it. This is letting life run it's course. Letting or not letting Leo be is part of this construct, and that is what you fail to see at this moment.

In my opinion, what we are observing here is not a healthy manifestation of stage green. Which means society will regress into a more reasonable form of stage orange with a mixture of green. This has happened a few times now, and it will happen until a proper evolutionary pathway up the spiral was found. Many will breach into yellow and stablize the environment somewhat, being perceived as the "voices of reason" by those who have begun to see the limitation of each of those stages.

Why do you say this? I don't get the sense whatsoever that this is true. We know Putin has isolated himself and removed any contrarian voice over the past few years that spoke against his agenda of attempting to reestablish the russian empire. And we know that is his main political motivation, because he has been talking about it to no end. Putin isn't cunning and intelligent, he has created an environment in which even his own intelligent officers were not able to give him a true picture of the situation. That's why he started the war, because he was told that the war would be over within days. That was just bad intel, and that intel was due to the corruption of his own government, which in the past few years he was the main contributor to. He replaced anyone who would have given any kind of resistance to his ideas, and so he has just fueled his own delusions. The idea that he is just a genius and everything he is doing is a rationally calculated act is just so absurd and fairy-tale like. This is not a movie, he is a flawed human being, and he genuinely wants to reestablish the russian empire, which in his eyes is not merely to benefit him and the regime. He is doing this for the very same reason Hitler wanted to create a Third Reich. For the greater good of his nation and it's descendants.

If it is deemed so. If you think it's a nice catch you cannot see Impossibility.

I am doing the opposite Leo. No, form is not formless. It is what it's deemed. That's it. There is no actual Absolute Truth, there is only deeming. Having an Absolute Truth would Limit Deeming, and Deeming is Limitless, unless it i deemed otherwise.

Well, it's Leo realizing the silly limitations he has put upon Existence, but he has not yet realized that it stems from his attachment to ideas, theory and intellectual frameworks.

I feel like a theory I posited about psychedelics, a few years back, and when that Conor Drama happened, was confirmed to me. It is happening to Leo atm, just on a more subtle level.

He is definitely talking to followers of his work, I can clearly remember it being contextualized that way, whenever he has a big new insight especially. Was there a single time you had difficulty grasping something Leo was saying, conceptually speaking?

No, it is arrogance. He always assumes the worst of people, it's like if you take the principle of charity and flip it on it's head, that's what he is embodying. Just think of how many times he says in his video "This is so advanced, you will probably not even understand what I am saying to you.", before he explains some basic shit. Every time he says those words it ends up being something that is easily understood. Nothing about Leo's framework is hard to understand, what's hard is to verify it for yourself. Yet for some reason he does think it is hard to understand intellectually, which means he has some very distorted view of how sophisticated his ideas are, or how much intelligence they require.

The irony is that you could make the same video about Adolf Hitler.

Rockstar is so big that this did probably cause more damage than anything. There is a reason why Rockstar doesn't release their main characters in some pre-alpha footage 4 years before release, not all marketing is good marketing.

This is the problem, you are incapable of having conversations and genuine exchange of perspective on this forum because of your attachment to your teacher role. All you can do is assert your own perspective and show others why they are wrong, or tell others you agree with them. But never an actual engagement/discourse.

I am not demonizing it at all, I am giving it a chance. But understanding the technology for what it is, is important. My point is that if you were to engage and contemplate this topic more seriously, I think you would realize that the AI's are not doing what humans do during creativity, it's not the same process. They are doing something akin to what the human brain uses during visualization, mind's eye activity and dreaming (altho still far less sophisticated and lacking in coherence because of the inherent limitation of the physical hardware of computers). The AI will never understand what it is creating, that's simply not what the AI is doing. While it may appear that when the human says "2+2=4" in his mind is the same as what the calculator does when you type in that equation, it is not the same at all. And because the processes used are not the same, is the precise reason why the calculator is so much more efficient at what it is doing. Because the human is not doing the same, the result merely is the same. I don't know how you are not seeing this with the amount of consciousness work you did, but the reason why the AI will not be able to do the same thing as humans is because it has no unified, multidimensional consciousness. And it's not because the software lacks, but because the nature of the computer in it's physical manifestation is fundamentally different from the brain. Here is a good article: https://www.unite.ai/is-dall-e-2-just-gluing-things-together-without-understanding-their-relationships/ It cannot understand relationships, because relationships are an aspect of perception. The AI does not perceive, it simply ruins a physical process. The AI is not merely lacking in complexity or training, the AI is not at all. And that's why it is not capable of understanding what an apple is, what a hand is, what a human is, what anything is. All it does is fart out images based on intuitive visualization. It will never know what it is creating, and that is why this is fundamentally different from human creativity. The irony here is that, even though a 4 year olds drawing will be far less sophisticated than what an AI would create, the child's art would be the result of perception, not computation. I can see a cat once, and if I perceived it correctly, I will be able to understand all it's components visually speaking. An AI will never understand what a cat is, all it does is create shapes that look like millions of images it was fed with the tag "cat". The AI will make mistakes that no 4 year old would ever make, like attach to a cat 2 tails, give it 5 legs and so forth, after having been fed millions of images of cats. This does not happen when humans create images, even if the images they create are far less sophisticated. This is because the human creates from true perception, from actual understanding. The human actually knows why 2+2 is 4, the calculator does not. All it does is display the results, which then are interpreted by humans. The human will immediately know when the calculator is wrong, when it says 2+2=5, and the same way, the human immediately knows what about these images is flawed, whereas the AI has no way of ever possibly knowing that, because it has no knowledge. Another limitation is that the AI has no spatial perception. It could not possibly know what a cat is, because a cat is a 3 dimensional entity. All the AI can do is generate 2d images, being fed flat images. This is why AI's often lack coherence when object disappear behind other objects. They could not possibly know what is behind an object, because all that exists to the AI is a flat space. Well, all of that presuming the AI was actually conscious, which it is not. My stance is that the human brain is not merely more sophisticated than a computer, it is pulling from completely different natural forces, inaccessible to computers in the way they exist today. The brain functions as one unity, feeding multiple dimensions of existence into one field of awareness. What forces are at work behind this are probably so foreign to us that we might have to invent entirely new scientific disciplines to investigate them. It's not merely physics, and one day we will realize this, and by that time, all technology that will exist today will seem like stone age technology. We will not merely make better computers, we will create something completely beyond computers. Computers in contrast will look like abacuses, and technology will look more like organic matter than contemporary computers.

I don't sound like anything, I think you just like the role of being the smartass teacher so you usually interpret what others write as uncharitably as possible so you can find in it something to criticize, at least on this forum I have noticed this a lot. You want to see me as bitter and afraid because you enjoy being a smartass Leo. But why? The images you picked are of far higher quality than this image you generated, nor is this one actually unique. Just look at it, it's not even coherent in terms of what it displays. Everyone and their mother will be using Ai for thumbnails and it's going to get old very quickly, whereas the images you usually choose I found had a certain design coherence and style that fit your brand and made it unique. I definitely think this was a downgrade not an upgrade. Especially Midjourney, I am not sure if you have worked enough with it to notice that it has a very specific style. And you can just immediately tell that it is a Midjourney image. In my view the images you used before were perfectly fine. I would recommend using stable diffusion or some other AI though to avoid the obvious problem with the style recognition. No I'm not, you are being uncharitable towards my position again. I don't think you have contemplated these topics deeply enough to even have a stance, you just want to sound provocative. It's like you are not even reading what I wrote. You have a reductionist and unsophisticated notion of creativity in my opinion. But I doubt you are open to even have a serious conversation about this. Contemplate the difference between creativity and mind's eye activity/visualization. Also, ponder this: If you give these neural networks only photos, will they ever be capable of generating something like a Disney cartoon style, by giving it some sort of prompt? Why are humans capable of evolving from realistic images towards abstract style's like a Disney style? There are clear answers to these questions, and if you contemplate this you will realize what the differences are. It fundamentally has to do with consciousness. I have, your notions of art and creativity however are reductionist and one-dimensional.

Think of yourself as God sitting behind a lense and looking at the world though what you consider your human self. And part of that lense is an addiction to thinking. But thinking is very limited, notice that thinking is one-dimensional. It is linear, not even 2 dimensional, let alone spatial or beyond. Even from your human perspective, you have far better tools available for discovery, but getting addicted to analysis will make it difficult to engage and find the value in those other tools. So before you can get distance from the human lense altogether, I think focusing on things beyond the particular narrow set of tool of this particular lense will be helpful.

Sure it's a tool, but the unwise will use to the detriment of their own craft. Looking at the most recent thumbnail for your video as an example. It does seem like you are jumping onto it just for the sake of jumping onto it, rather than actually asking yourself whether it improved the quality of your art. Yes, but human visual art is not inspired by mere visual information, and that's all the AI could possibly do. That's it biggest limitation, it has no unified, multidimensional, "self-aware" consciousness that is capable of understanding. It does not know what it is creating. The human mind is not a neural network, rather neural networks are part of it. Having a very reductionist view of creativity will of course make you think the AI is doing the same the human is doing, but that's simply not the case. It does seem to me like you have not contemplated this in depth.

You are trying to grasp something ungraspable. Imagine you had a mind that could only understand things in 2 dimensions. Then, that mind tried to look at a 3D object. You'd look at it, and say it is a square, then it would change, and you'd say "Oh, it's an oval!". And then it would change, you'd say it is a circle. Now, from your perspective it was all just a 2D object changing it's form. But imagine someone who could understand 3D objects came to you and told you "No, it actually never changed it's form, it was the same object the whole time, just changing direction!", it would make no sense to you at all, because you cannot grasp what a 3D object even is. Now, imagine your entire human life is limited to 2D, and what Leo tried to describe to you is 3D. Your entire life is 2D, including the very question you are posing, and the frame you use to talk about this. In fact, all you are doing is just describing a 2D shape. That's your limitation, you could not ever hope to go beyond that. For you to see, you have to become God. And once you are, any questions a human will pose will simply be a 2D object, one of infinite. Just that the object being described is not 3D, it is Infinite Dimensional. You are asking a human question, to which you could only possible how to attain a human answer. Only you will see, this question will become mute. It will seem to you like someone asking what shape a 3D object has. It has no shape, because it is a form. Thinking and asking the questions you do simply reaffirm your human limitation. That's what you are doing by trying to finding answers to human questions. You're just being a human, like an ant is being an ant

Sure but there is a great irony in telling people to get into AI art and right after having a post about Mastery. These AI's are the most magic pill thing I have ever seen in the history of mankind and it will discourage an entire generation to learn and master art, which could very well lead to a temporary degradation of the evolutionary process of art, because of how much time investment it takes to get to a point to evolve art, and because these AI's are not capable of generating genuinely novel styles in the way humans can. Again, AI = Visualization, not Art Creation. There is a big difference and one should contemplate it. Just to understand how art evolves in fields like animation for example, I can recommend the book Disney Animation: The Illusion of Life.

Legally things are a bit more complicated, because how you described it is not really how it is done. The AI does not look at an image and use it to generate a certain result, rather, the developers of the AI used certain images to create a certain machine learning system which is capable of the given result. I've been experimenting with them for the past few weeks and there are very clear limitations to these AI's. Fundamentally, they are not imitating the process of art creation, as that on average requires a different set of cognition than what is simulated here. Rather, they are imitating or accessing a kind of intuitive impressionistic visualization. I'm too lazy to go into detail, but in my estimation it's probably similar to what the brain does during dreaming or mind's eye activity, far less sophisticated due to lacking in dimensions, but doing what it is doing much better and clearer. Imagine it the difference between a mathematician and a calculator. Sure, the calculator can do certain things much faster and easier, but it is fundmanetally doing something different than a mathematician when she contemplates the nature of math. But on the other hand, calculators can certainly do things no human can do, atleast not in the same span of time, which is precisely why they seem so impressive. I am kind of frustrated in how limited these are because I was hoping to use them for some projects, and I don't think these limitations will ever get resolved due to the above mentioned nature of these machines. At least not with the current approach, and I also suspect that the very nature of the hardware will be the limiting factor. I think there are going to be some really cool use cases for artist in regards to their painting process but I suspect that it is going to take some years if not decades for this to actually get standardized and interesting for everyone. Maybe one day I will be able to feed it images of my style and it'll be able to help me create images faster, that would be super cool. Img2img is also super interesting but also kind of limited. Been working with concept artists and tinkering around, and you can get some really, really good results when you use sketches and let the AI "finish" them with it's own interpretation of what it is seeing. I kind of don't like it because it's hard to uphold a flow state and it is kind of ADHD inducing for me, but in terms of output, this will definitely change the industry. You can take a very rough design thumbnail and get hundreds of images, variations of that thumbnail with the style you want. It does feel cheap because you can just take your design and turn it a design that will look like it came from Ruan Jia, but I would not say it can even remotely replace the complete design process, simply because of the lack of coherence and design purpose. This will replace a lot of jobs simply because the best artists will be able to output much more, and it will probably influence what kind of styles will proliferate in the future (kind of how we don't have 2d animation disney movies anymore because of how expensive they were), but if you think you'll be able to keep up, as a layman, with someone like Craig Mullins, because you can turn a prompt into a visualization, you are just delusional. I've seen some mindblowing stuff from artists who are integrating this into their work process, these guys were just supercharged onto a new level. It certainly alleviates a bit of the craftsmanship for certain styles of digital painting. But it does not replace things like design and composition whatsoever. Everything that takes a certain degree of intentionality and sophistication of coherence will still require a human mind.

I was giving you my perspective.

My first comment wasn't addressing you specifically, that's why I put a space between my response to you and the rest of the post. And I am too lazy to clarify, because I don't think it will work and this topic is to trivial to argue about it like this.

Well, like I said to me it's pretty clear, I wouldn't know how to word it differently.

Who knows.

Well, at least that makes sense, because I think otherwise you would have understood it when Destiny explained it. I don't know how else to explain it, to me it's pretty clear and straight forward.