A.I. Art Is Destroying My Life Purpose

[AtheisticNonduality]

32 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

Why is that? It can just simulate these functions in real time. Just like a minecraft world doesnt need to compute the whole world, but only the part you currently see. If an AI is given the command to produce some Micelangeloesque painting, it doesnt need to create or conceptualize the whole thing at a time,

Yes, enjoy your minecraft world Micelangeloesque paintings . . .

Quote

it only needs to incrementally get there from some kind of mental model

I would say, that the mental models are superficial.

[Space]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Find a more intelligent way of creating art than being a line-monkey.

Rather than being afraid of technology, learn to adopt it quickly and leverage it to do new cutting-edge things which previous artists couldn't dream of. Art must evolve like everything else.

Rather than clinging to being an illustrator, turn yourself into an art director. You'll generate way more value for the world.

Thanks for the blunt feedback man! Honestly really appreciate it. I've definitely been having some new (and more optimistic) ideas and thoughts since writing the original post. 

2 hours ago, The Mystical Man said:

Some of the results are amazing: https://www.midjourney.com/showcase/

Yea that work is amazing. But funnily none of it would work in an editorial context. So that makes me feel a little better.

 

[zurew]

3 hours ago, MarkKol said:

Shoe making has been automated a long ass time ago with A.I and yet there are still hand made products out there, many which are higher quality than their A.I made counterparts

But how many people are buying handmade shoes nowadays? That market is almost extinct, and lets not forget that most people who were making handmade shoes back then, were forced to change profession.

2 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

So the idea of AH, IT'S DEVELOPING SO FAST IT HAS TO REPLACE EVERYTHING is nonsense and overexcitation

genuine artist

Who is a genuine artist for you? Michelangelo? If you set the bar that high, then we only talk about exceptional people who occupy 0.0001% of the current art market, so even if we assume that AI won't be able to produce such quality, we are still talking about AI replacing 99%+ of the current market. A general artist can't produce much better quality art compared to what an AI can and will (if we only focus on AI's best creations).

3 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

To properly replicate a genuine artist, the AI would need to mimic not inexactly but exactly all of the lower human elements sensations, impulses, emotions in addition to what it already has, which is a small amount of symbolic information. It would also need higher consciousness; it would also need actual intelligence.

Lets dig deeper here, because we are scratching  the surface with very vague concepts and assumptions. Can you show us the difference(s) between a human vs AI generated image. Like pick one art/image that was produced by a human and do the same with an AI, and then show us your breakdown with specific points and critiques.

[AtheisticNonduality]

Just now, zurew said:

But how many people are buying handmade shoes nowadays? That market is almost extinct, and lets not forget that most people who were making handmade shoes back then, were forced to change profession.

You're really comparing art to shoemaking!???‍♂️

[zurew]

1 minute ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

You're really comparing art to shoemaking!???‍♂️

Still waiting for an argument that isn't based on vague concepts and 10000 assumptions.

[AtheisticNonduality]

Just now, zurew said:

Still waiting for an argument that isn't based on vague concepts and 10000 assumptions.

I didn't want to derail this thread, but we've already been over this, in relative detail actually, elsewhere. 

 

[zurew]

10 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

I didn't want to derail this thread, but we've already been over this, in relative detail actually, elsewhere. 

Oh okay, ty, will check it out.

Edit: Yeah i remember now: your main point was, that they lack free will , therefore they aren't creative (because your definition of creative contains the concept of free will) and your other point was this: an AI generated image is missing something: they all look the same and feel the same.

I think we should focus on the 'how it feels' part (if you want to continue the discussion). I assume, that your feeling(s) about those images are coming from you knowing beforehand who/what created that particular image. If that assumption isn't true, i would be curious to explore this question more deeper.

Edited September 2, 2022 by zurew

[Danioover9000]

   I really don't think people here appreciate how quickly A.I is gonna replace almost every labor and creative field that humanity has ever created for itself. Again, do I have to bring up how some A.I programs like Alpha Go and Alpha Zero were able to master chess and Chinese Go for under 5 years? 5 years, and beating grand masters at their craft? How long do you think it's gonna take for A.I to obsolete the entire field of art? 10 years? it's coming artists, be ready, and be prepared to feel and thing negatively about it too.

   You can't just say 'Well, fine then. Just gonna use the A.I program while I'm doing the work as well'. Yes, you could, but you're denying how your role is gonna get replaced, and where does that leave you? Jobless? 

   It's really not that hard to imagine how A.I will also do the same with other fields of art as well if it's very successful at doing it with games, and language. Also, language, very big deal later on.

[Danioover9000]

 

[The Mystical Man]

Perhaps some of you are underestimating what it takes to create a staggering work of art. AI might replace certain roles, but the role of the visionary director can never be replaced. AI can be in service of the vision, but it will not become the source of the vision, for AI will never be empathetic and coherent enough to create by itself a complete entertainment experience that is meaningful and satisfying. 

[zurew]

15 minutes ago, The Mystical Man said:

will never be empathetic and coherent enough to create by itself a complete entertainment experience that is meaningful and satisfying. 

What makes an art meaningful and satisfying in your opinion?

Edited September 2, 2022 by zurew

[AtheisticNonduality]

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

   I really don't think people here appreciate how quickly A.I is gonna replace almost every labor and creative field that humanity has ever created for itself. Again, do I have to bring up how some A.I programs like Alpha Go and Alpha Zero were able to master chess and Chinese Go for under 5 years? 5 years, and beating grand masters at their craft? How long do you think it's gonna take for A.I to obsolete the entire field of art? 10 years? it's coming artists, be ready, and be prepared to feel and thing negatively about it too.

You're really comparing art to chess? All these comparisons with shoemaking and chess . . .

If we use the chess analogy, we can understand why art has not been subsumed by AI but chess has. Chess, while more cognitively taxing than looking at a piece of art, to most humans, uses simple rules which can be programmed as bare dissociated skeletons of logic, just structures without the fleshy depth of the human being's entirety.

AI can learn chess easily.

AI can learn grammar easily, but it can never write a good story no matter how grammatically correct its shown processing is, simply because it can handle the webs of syntax, the skeletal logic, but does not have all of the lower previously evolved parts of the human being that source the impulsion and emotionality of stories or the higher consciousnesses of human beings which give it higher meanings. It doesn't even have the webbed logic developed to its fullest degrees. AI may study, copy, and paste the traits of stories the programmer humans may consider high quality. It may even use preset, or even actively learning, rules to cut up and reassemble the traits of the given good stories to mimic "creativity" (pseudo-creative technological perversion), but it can never under any circumstances write something actually what would come from a human being with a genius factor that doesn't merely do that . . . It does not matter how advanced it gets; it will have the same limitations; or else it will have to become a real organism and not just a simulation.

20 minutes ago, The Mystical Man said:

Perhaps some of you are underestimating what it takes to create a staggering work of art. AI might replace certain roles, but the role of the visionary director can never be replaced. AI can be in service of the vision, but it will not become the source of the vision, for AI will never be empathetic and coherent enough to create by itself a complete entertainment experience that is meaningful and satisfying. 

Exactly.

[The Mystical Man]

2 hours ago, zurew said:

What makes art meaningful and satisfying in your opinion?

Art is about conveying human emotions. For example, a work of art like Star Wars can originate only from a human mind; in this case, from the mind of George Lucas. Look at a short and seemingly simple scene like this: 

Will AI ever be empathetic enough to orchestrate something like that? I doubt it. 

Read the comments under that video, and you will understand why that piece of art is so meaningful to people. 

Edited September 2, 2022 by The Mystical Man

[The Mystical Man]

Another visionary director is Hayao Miyazaki. He also conveyed human emotions with his work:

In the future, AI might create the animations, but without genius minds like that of Miyazaki, the animations will be completely meaningless.

There is nothing artistic about drawing every single frame of a movie like Spirited Away; it's a technical task, and if AI can help with tasks like that, that's great, because Studio Ghibli struggled a lot to finish the movie in time.

Nobody watches a Ghibli movie as a kid and thinks, "I hope I can painstakingly draw frames for Ghibli when I grow up." What you really want to do is to tell stories; you want to convey emotions. 

Edited September 2, 2022 by The Mystical Man

[The Mystical Man]

Another great director is Neil Druckmann:

The difficulty of the work that Druckmann had to do to nail the emotion of that scene is very easy to underestimate. No AI can do that kind of a work, because what's required is understanding, vision, taste, and empathy, or, simply, humanity.

No scene exists in a vacuum. That scene, and every subsequent scene, sets up the emotional climax. Only a visionary director/writer can craft an experience like that.

Edited September 2, 2022 by The Mystical Man

[Danioover9000]

@AtheisticNonduality

43 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

You're really comparing art to chess? All these comparisons with shoemaking and chess . . .

If we use the chess analogy, we can understand why art has not been subsumed by AI but chess has. Chess, while more cognitively taxing than looking at a piece of art, to most humans, uses simple rules which can be programmed as bare dissociated skeletons of logic, just structures without the fleshy depth of the human being's entirety.

AI can learn chess easily.

AI can learn grammar easily, but it can never write a good story no matter how grammatically correct its shown processing is, simply because it can handle the webs of syntax, the skeletal logic, but does not have all of the lower previously evolved parts of the human being that source the impulsion and emotionality of stories or the higher consciousnesses of human beings which give it higher meanings. It doesn't even have the webbed logic developed to its fullest degrees. AI may study, copy, and paste the traits of stories the programmer humans may consider high quality. It may even use preset, or even actively learning, rules to cut up and reassemble the traits of the given good stories to mimic "creativity" (pseudo-creative technological perversion), but it can never under any circumstances write something actually what would come from a human being with a genius factor that doesn't merely do that . . . It does not matter how advanced it gets; it will have the same limitations; or else it will have to become a real organism and not just a simulation.

Exactly.

   I have to compare something with something. If you think my comparison is weak, why don't you provide a better comparison then?

   For example, look at A.I recognition systems, and virtual reality, and the history of video games and how the graphics evolved over time, to become more and more realistic, while obsoleting each tech that was considered the highest performing device. That'll someday be artists and the jobs and careers you've worked really hard to get into, only in a few years or several years' time, get obsoleted along with the artists as well.

   It's all fun and games discussing the problems of A.I advancement and unemployment increases/decreases, until you feel that happening to you and having to adjust and deal with the strong negative emotions and thinking of losing your sense of purpose. A thing has taken away your purpose isn't a good feeling to feel. I don't know why most here are too naive to the dangers of the A.I. Oh, yeah, we're using the internet!

[IAmReallyImportant]

I have access to DALL-E 2 and I can assure you it isn't really creative and humans still can produce better images and will be that way.

Moreover, you would need a robot if it is about drawing oil-paintings e.g. or watercolor etc. There are certain features on the way e.g. a hand had moved on the paper with which you can identify a good painter, which is hard to imitate to impossible even if a robot could draw paintings with a brush.

[IAmReallyImportant]

AI is not really intelligent. It is crystal intelligence and little/no fluid intelligence. And it won't be in the future with current methods, which are basically the same as 30 years ago, just with some modifications.

Basically, it is dynamic programming. Meaning, information from data is saved in datastructures, which is later reproduced. So no real intelligence or creativity takes into place.

[AtheisticNonduality]

10 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

 I have to compare something with something. If you think my comparison is weak, why don't you provide a better comparison then?

I would say human creativity, when it really exists, is incomparable to anything else.

Quote

   For example, look at A.I recognition systems, and virtual reality, and the history of video games and how the graphics evolved over time, to become more and more realistic, while obsoleting each tech that was considered the highest performing device. That'll someday be artists and the jobs and careers you've worked really hard to get into, only in a few years or several years' time, get obsoleted along with the artists as well.

   It's all fun and games discussing the problems of A.I advancement and unemployment increases/decreases, until you feel that happening to you and having to adjust and deal with the strong negative emotions and thinking of losing your sense of purpose. A thing has taken away your purpose isn't a good feeling to feel. I don't know why most here are too naive to the dangers of the A.I. Oh, yeah, we're using the internet!

Maybe address the argument I made, and this will be easier. 

[Danioover9000]

@IAmReallyImportant

2 minutes ago, IAmReallyImportant said:

AI is not really intelligent. It is crystal intelligence and little/no fluid intelligence. And it won't be in the future with current methods, which are basically the same as 30 years ago, just with some modifications.

Basically, it is dynamic programming. Meaning, information from data is saved in datastructures, which is later reproduced. So no real intelligence or creativity takes into place.

   Sure! That's great! Until A.I develops general intelligence, which'll have far more consequences than just replacing other knowledge type or creativity type jobs.

   So, I guess the key question, for our generation and our current situation, is should we introduce further limits to how A.I is developed and used? Further regulations of technology?