To be useful, this needs to be backed by an identity certificate (like SSL), ideally signed by a root authority like a state which can reconcile with a birth certificate, or some other form of state-issued ID.
Not by AI
361–370 of 456 posts
Re: Not by AI
#362This is an interesting take. "AI" is producing a counter-culture against it.
Re: Not by AI
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what's your point. People that enjoy the act of writing or of painting by hand will still be able to do that.
They can, but they won't be able to compete. When photography replaced many of the uses of painting, some painting jobs were lost, but photography ones were gained. Now, many creative jobs will be done by computers, leaving the world less enjoyable for people who enjoy creating. Sure, some people will continue to be creative, but look at what happened to art after photography: we got modern art, where people just pis…
> They can, but they won't be able to compete.
Compete for what?
> ...the world less enjoyable for people who enjoy creating
But why?? I think you measure everything only one how much you can sell something. Sure some art earns money, but many people do art without thinking if they can earn something out of it.
And to be clear, we got much more than just modern art, which you tried to nitpick here.
Re: Not by AI
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding point #3. The problem people have with AI is that it is cheapening the things that make us "special". If anything I can draw, paint write, create, and pour my heart and soul into can be acceptably approximated by a "bot" in five seconds or less, then what do I have to offer to the world beyond my "work" output? The things that creatively inspire me have been commoditized in a way where it's exponentially ha…
A painting or story made by artificial intelligence is not human because it does not have a life story behind it. I still enjoy reading the artist's biography, some of his correspondence, trying to understand his creative process. If you pour your heart into your work we can bond through human experience, maybe we can even sit down and talk. An AI does not fear death or loneliness. Sometimes I think that part of this…
> Sometimes I think that part of this site's audience only considers art from a consumer-product perspective
Imagine you are an artist. You as a patron connect and talk about a piece of art, you walk away happy and feeling connected. He does not sell any art because they are indistinguishable from what the AI can produce with the cost of electricity. Now if you are willing to pay for "bonding over human experience", GPT can probably be trained to do that as well. Generative AI eliminates the livelihood of almost all artists eventually.
Re: Not by AI
#365This is an interesting take. "AI" is producing a counter-culture against it.
The machinery of capitalism is fantastic about co-opting and productizing counter-cultures. Nothing meaningful will come of this, unless humans start thinking more systematically. For most people, they are too specialized in a narrow field to think like this, or the system is too complex for them to think about effectively.
Re: Not by AI
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think I would be surprised. You're just removing your own inherent and vast set of input and modelling parameters from the equation and offloading it to a more rigid model. You're already the most complex model and model-maker—the procedure of developing a skill through a creative feedback loop and its output can be vastly more edifying for yourself and others. Don't take my word for it. You can only know by…
I don't think that if you want to accomplish art , you have to enjoy the process of these specific modes of art or you're failing yourself. And I think that's what a lot of AI artists want, is to have the results, and a big portion of that problem has been solved. And saying that, I don't disagree with the idea that learning how to draw causes a larger mental development than writing prompts, and that prompters will…
My question reworded was actually: what is the result you expect?
A 'correct' image on a computer? Then you'll get just that and little more.
But I'm suggesting there is much more to be gained by taking part in a creative act as an experience and its myriad of facets.
Taking the stance that a language or 2-dimensional geometric model is a replacement for the latter is gross hubris. At best it can describe a potential outcome, but it does't provide any of the rest.
To the point about "accomplishing art", there is an old saying often repeated: "art is never finished, it is only abandoned". So if you think art is just something to be accomplished, a box ticked and then profited from then I think it is worth studying the subject further.
Re: Not by AI
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know about other people but I don't "fault" the AI anything, nor am I even particularly bothered by AI-generated content per se. What fills me with dread is the obvious glee over removing human work from sellable products, when there is no viable alternative to working for most people. We've created a world where a lot of jobs can be automated, and that is somehow a bad thing , and it's going to be used to cr…
Would you be happier if your car / bicycle / city bus was produced entirely by hand, with no tools or automation? Labor will shift. Bemoaning new efficiencies and new empowerment because they reduce the need for meaningless labor consumption is backwards. We should be sensitive to those whose lives will take an unexpected turn (I may be one of them!), but we should do so in the context of celebrating greater individu…
> Labor will shift.
Until it doesn't. I mean until very recently the narrative justification for extreme automation was it would free up our time to create art and stuff. Now that's in question.
It's all excuses to avoid thinking about the problems the automation technology will cause. Avoidance worked OK in the past, but as these technologies get more and more extreme, the problems will get more and more pressing, and the old lazy excuses won't cut it anymore.
> ...but we should do so in the context of celebrating greater individual leverage to create and produce.
And the end point of that is a small cadre of elites who control the machines, and hordes of people left with no economic value (except, perhaps as slaves for elite amusement, like gladiators and prostitutes).
Re: Not by AI
#368How much AI content can be in the AI's training data before it just starts to suck? If 90% of the internet in 2025 is AI generated, then how will a new AI be trained?
Re: Not by AI
#369A quote I heard recently that really resonated with me: "Soon, asking a writer if they use AI will be like asking a photographer if they use Photoshop" – e.g., it's a foregone conclusion, and the best artists will generally adapt to using the best tools available
The "writers" who can benefit from AI are not artists. They might be bloggers or journalists or researchers. But there is no way that a generative AI can produce, say, your memoir for you. How could it? You have to say what happened. Your life experience can't be generated. Ditto for any sort of novel above the level of the most basic imitative genre stuff. I'm certain AI could spit out a perfectly passable airport p…
I’m not so sure an AI couldn’t, in theory at least produce a memoir if you fed it your diaries, emails, social media chats and histories, photos and videos from throughout your life, and so on.
Re: Not by AI
#370This feels naive and perfunctory, at best.
If, by some chance, this actually caught on and was some kind of indicator of quality, it would be in a predictive model's best interest to integrate the logo into any kind of web design it produces. Furthermore, no human-curated content farm would hesitate to include this symbol, regardless of the content's human 'purity'.