A.I. Art Is Destroying My Life Purpose

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, DrugsBunny said:

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.

Of course I understand this line of logic. But it's a bad way to think about work and life. We want life to get easier and more efficient so we can operate on ever higher levels of abstraction. Yes, for truck drivers AI is bad, but for mankind as a whole eliminating truck drivers is good because AI will driver safer and you can do other things like work or player while the AI drives you. So lamenting the loss of truck driving is not intelligent. Rather, position yourself in life such that you are operating on higher levels of abstraction.

This is all about how you position yourself. And your life purpose should not be something like truck driving, bricklaying, or line drawing. That would be like saying that my life purpose is to carry rocks up a hill. And then you want to kill every donkey that comes along just because you want to keep your job. This is a silly approach to life. It is a failure of positioning.

Edited September 4, 2022 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

@Leo Gura Do you see a good future art market when it comes to VR?

[DrugsBunny]

@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.

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, DrugsBunny said:

I was correct to point out that this sucks for artists who make money.

They just have to adjust how they go about doing art. That's evolution.

[Leo Gura]

[AtheisticNonduality]

17 minutes ago, DrugsBunny said:

"it's almost like you didn't read all 7 pages of the thread!! /facepalm x48"

I'm just saying it would disprove the full extent of your worldview.

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

What the hell does this mean?

[DrugsBunny]

1 minute ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

I'm just saying it would disprove the full extent of your worldview.

"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". 

[AtheisticNonduality]

2 minutes ago, DrugsBunny said:

"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!

Keep in mind that when cameras were first popularized this exact same conversation was happening. And nothing came of it.

The AI images are weak. My arguments have been exhaustive, no matter how much technologists will misconstrue and non-understand them.

It will never arrive at something like this!

 

[DrugsBunny]

@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.

[AtheisticNonduality]

1 minute ago, DrugsBunny said:

@AtheisticNonduality Are you familiar with the concept of the "technological singularity"?

Yes.

Quote

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.

Right, I don't have any issues with the idea of replicating human talents and even improving them, but it won't happen through this type of AI or even in the next century. I've said earlier in the thread that if you get an AI on par with a high-level human in a particular field of human expression/meaning/creation, then you already have a real organism. But to do that you'll have to attain an elevation of complexity far beyond what the average "technological singularity" speculator and/or advocate is speaking or thinking about when it comes to the nature of what we're talking about.

I maintain that human creativity, because of its immense origins down to every last cell in the human body and every last emotional pulse and meaningful current, is not computable even if you observe and record everything that it does. No matter how many of its visible and laid-down patterns or creations it's made, you won't be able to copy it or compete with it, simply because it's just that inscrutably complex and an immensity outside the limits of anything else we humans have access to in this world.

So I agree with the idea that it is feasible, theoretically/technically, but I don't think it's practically possible in the short term or in the way most people are rambling about here.

[Leo Gura]

25 minutes ago, DrugsBunny said:

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". 

Edited September 5, 2022 by Leo Gura

[DrugsBunny]

@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.

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, DrugsBunny said:

@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.

"Devastated artist staring at computer screen in horror as AI annihilates the obsolete artist's marketability --ar 16:9 --uplight --stop 90 --seed 2"

[DrugsBunny]

7 minutes ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

So I agree with the idea that it is feasible, theoretically/technically, but I don't think it's practically possible in the short term or in the way most people are rambling about here.

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.

[AtheisticNonduality]

3 minutes ago, DrugsBunny said:

The technological singularity is speculated to take place between 2040-2050.

If that is the case, which it is not, then Leo and everyone else here should spend the next decades preparing for the "culture war" that will dictate the ideological slants of that technology, and what role spirituality would play in that.

[Jake Chambers]

Sorry but all these AI drawings in this thread are completely tasteless. I understand that if you lack proper taste you would think AI is making artists obsolete, but man this sucks. 

It also really shows you don’t know about real art if you disqualify the technical skill and prowess of the artist, like that skill is just some afterthought that is only there because the ideas of the artist have to be manifested. No, the art is also in the actual hand of the painter. Saying it is not is completely retarded.
 

You can make some cool things but at the moment it’s nowhere near the artistic level of some humans. The best human art has a subtlety to it i have never seen in ai art. 
 

Although I agree the AI can make cool concepts fast. It is very imaginative.

And I’m not saying that using these AI is not an art to itself. AI art and the skill of using it can be as deep as other art. But it really doesn’t make human art obsolete, well, maybe the  art that is meant for the masses who don’t really care about the true quality of masterpieces.

[Leo Gura]

@DrugsBunny Here's the ultimate guide for generating prompts:

https://rexwang8.github.io/resource/ai/teapot

[AtheisticNonduality]

1 minute ago, Jake Chambers said:

Sorry but all these AI drawings in this thread are completely tasteless. I understand that if you lack proper taste you would think AI is making artists obsolete, but man this sucks. 

It also really shows you don’t know about real art if you disqualify the technical skill and prowess of the artist, like that skill is just some afterthought that is only there because the ideas of the artist have to be manifested. No, the art is also in the actual hand of the painter. Saying it is not is completely retarded.
 

You can make some cool things but at the moment it’s nowhere near the artistic level of some humans. The best human art has a subtlety to it i have never seen in ai art. 
 

Although I agree the AI can make cool concepts fast. It is very imaginative.

And I’m not saying that using these AI is not an art to itself. AI art and the skill of using it can be as deep as other art. But it really doesn’t make human art obsolete, well, maybe the  art that is meant for the masses who don’t really care about the true quality of masterpieces.

Yes, I've been trying to say this.

[Leo Gura]

The introduction of AI is analogous to the introduction of photography. Yes, if you were a photorealistic painter your lost your job. But new kinds of art were also possible thanks to photography. This includes all of filmmaking. So the solution is: adapt, evolve, become a filmmaker, make millions in the process.

Edited September 5, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Jake Chambers]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The introduction of AI is analogous to the introduction of photography. Yes, if you were a photorealistic painter your lost your job. But new kinds of art were also possible thanks to photography. This includes all of filmmaking. So the solution is: adapt, evolve, become a filmmaker, make millions in the process.

Photographers used to make big bank making good quality photos until regular people started to afford cameras, and ditched hiring professional photographers for their work. But of course photo quality dropped dramatically. But most people didn’t need that high quality anyway. 
 

same what is going on now with this AI stuff.  Real artists getting ditched for AI art because its easy to do your self. But quality drops.

Edited September 5, 2022 by Jake Chambers