Discussion about A.I.

[Doragon]

Fear is the most basal of our emotions. The one inherited from our reptile brain.

Nonsense, my fear is a result of rational thinking, not some form of primitive reflex. You simply can;t imagine how someone can object to a wonderful 'progress'.

A.I. is here to stay, I agree. No way anyone can ever stop the mindless masses to embrace the inevitable. Or marketing, which is the most powerful force in the universe. But humanity will disappear. Sorry for feeling sorrow for that.

 

[Luises]

Yeah, I know the story. I saw it in a Hollywood movie. An asteroid or something wipes mankind from the face of the Earth while the screenwriter and the director have an orgasm and the public eats their popcorn and chocolates. When the end credits roll on the screen, they applaud the morale of the story, and the feeling of guilt, ironically, makes them feel better.

But humanity is not the evil incarnate, nor is all holiness. Doom prophecies come and go. In all epochs there are people telling us about the demon and trying to sell us a pass to heaven, or trying to profit from making us feel guilty. I do not buy any of those. There are evil men, of course. But, at the end, they rarely get away with it. AI may be a danger, but we have survived worse menaces, like a world war where 80 million people died, or the nuclear races of the cold war, where we were a button press away from total annihilation.

That say, the sooner we make a rational and realistic analysis of AI's pitfalls and dangers, and act to counter them, the better we will live, and the more we will get to benefit from this new technology.

 

[aimar]

Things are changing and faster and faster.
Who in the 1800s could have imagined a helicopter?
Our streets clogged with cars are a catastrophe in terms of quality of life.
It's normal for so many people.

The changes brought about by AI will be huge. Good and bad at the same time, because cars are also useful.

I think you can shield yourself. I come from the village, I don't understand big cities. I can live with little or as much AI as I want.
Aren't text messages over the air also somehow AI?

One is always lied to by politics and society. Things can be shown in frame or only partially. That's cheating.
Even friends omit information during conversations, for different reasons.

Total cheating is now possible. And it's impossible to always question everything.

But still better than sitting in church waiting for salvation.
On vacation I experienced a strange incident:

In Catholic Poland I listen to a devotion and understand nothing. But I suspect what nonsense is being said there. The helicopter circled nearby, looking for a place to land. Someone had probably passed out in fear.

I would have liked to ask the priest what a helicopter is.

This text was translated from German by a computer. I just proofread and learned from it.

 

[thecuriousone]

After discarding over one hundred pics, I used the prompt: a burning naked woman, crucified on a burning cross, burning in a fire
on deepdream generator, giving something that is so good I can publish it without further editing. I am not here to defend or fight AI.

 

[Luises]

Interesting image. You could say that the proportions are incorrect (the left arm is way longer than the right one, for example), and that it lacks details "experts" in crucifixion will surely miss, such as the nails on the wrists and feet. A common pitfall of AI-generated images are hands with six or seven fingers. It's almost as AIs copy the oncept in existing images but can not count the fingers. But, on the other hand, you can almost feel the pain and the terror of the woman. Maybe she will die soon. Nobody survives the fierce torture of flames for too long. But for the moment, it's life turned into hell.

In my opinion, it shows what an AI is capable of today. It is powerful and evocative. Almost photorealistic until you start to notice its deficiencies. You can take for what it is, and maybe enjoy it. But a writer or a painter can use it as a starting point to develop an story or a picture.

In this stage, IMHO, AIs are really nice tools to give an starting point, or to automate cumbersome work. Just tell the AI what you want, let it spit a text or some images, and then work on it. Select the images that you like most. Maybe process them on Photoshop, or use them as inspiration for your work. In the case of text, read the AI's output. If it is non-fiction, check that the facts behind it are solid, that the IA has not hallucinated. If it is fiction, maybe you can use it as a sketch for a more complete story, one in which you can pour your own creativity. Use the AI as a tool. Create something unique with its help.

And that brings me to how I see the "art and AI" problem, the one that made @Doragon open this thread and many of us follow on it. This is my personal opinion, of course, and I do not intend to impose it on anybody. But maybe you'll find it an interesting point of view, even if you don't agree with it.

For me, art is all about the creative process. For example, I do love Tolkien, not only because the vast world that he painted in his works, but over all for the process of decades that led him to create such a backdrop from the starting point of an imaginary tongue. In the same way, I enjoy @mp5stab and @Barbaria1 last work because it intrigues me how they have arranged that novel "conversation" form, and what plot twists they may have in mind. Or @markus work, on which we can see its chaotic but wonderful development in real time, thanks to his postings to the Pleasure in Suffering thread. In fact, it was his work which made me join CF.

Art is more than just the output. It's also all the roots from which artists draws their inspiration, and the creative process itself. For me, those are completely absent from an AI output. And that makes AI-generated art a lot less enjoyable.

But, remember, this is just my point of view. If you don't agree, I'd love to hear your arguments against it.

 

[thecuriousone]

Luises, in general I agree to what you said. I think I take the time to edit the pic, to make it more beautiful/realistic.

 

[Fantasmo]

At the same time, it's sad that every time a new technology arrives, people react negatively, perhaps out of fear. For example, in the 1560s, the first Russian printing shop opened in Moscow. Months later, it was burned down by copyists, which saw it as a menace to their work. The same happened with the invention of photography (it would end art), the phonograph record (it would end music), the radio (it would end music, again), the television (it was going to be the end of cinema), the computer (everyone would lose their jobs), the home Internet (it would end music and literature, one more time). And so on. Not a single one of those prophecies have been fulfilled, of course. But it doesn't stop us from falling in the same trap again and again. It's part of human condition, I'm afraid.

The empty criticism to AI doesn't surprise me. In fact, what would have surprised me would have been a lack of criticism.

Lets remove the pink "technology blindness" glasses for a moment.
Photography largely DID end art... or do you still see painters living from doing scenic paintings or portrays, to hang in appartements? It opened new areas of art though...
Phonograph and radio are invalid references, there is no creation, just distribution...
Similar with Television and cinema...
Computer: The computer is only a tool so far! It changes work, enables us to do more, with less effort...

AI is something completely different: It REPLACES humans! Its not a tool, it makes humans OBSOLETE!

Companies in their seemingly limitless stupidity already make plain use of it, using "AI" in recruiting for example. The same companies then are complaining about lack of skilled applicants in turn, because they fail to understand that AI just are completely dumb "filters".
Look how companies start to let go people in the tens of thousands... because they automate their work using AI. Even tech companies like Google!

I said it before and I'll repeat it: Part of the appeal of art, and in our case erotic art, is also that it is human made, a window into the creators personal little kinky world.

I am not at all interested to look into the window of an AI... that doesn't even understand what it creates. AI is just two neuronal networks working against each other: A (random) generator and a discriminator that filters out results that are too far off the intended result. The AI knows as much about what it creates as a mouse understands nuclear powerplants!
Some like to fuck inflatable dolls. Those might be "customers" for AI art...
I prefer the real thing...

A bit further away from art and moving on to AI in general:
We currently are plain stupid.
People who believe that they are "extra smart" already are using AI to write texts for themselves in business context. The result is ridiculous, as AI fails to understand what it does. More so, AI invents facts... the output is worthless at best and that's probably an understatement: It is dangerous. The texts are "good enough" to think that the employee just had a bad day and forgot half of the themes, creating more work on others desk as a result!

Soon the internet will be a completely useless resource, because it will be flooded with AI created semi-random content that has zero information value, but is just a loose accumulation of junks of information gathered somewhere and blended into something that LOOKS LIKE it makes sense!
More worrying:
AI can program itself, we are stupid enough to build AI into combat robots and send them out to kill people.
Has anyone seen "Terminator"?

Yes, there are a huge number of questions to be asked. AI is more than just another tool and it has the potential to put an end to humanity, if we are not cautious. In a local context (loose job, existence) or a lager one (AI turning against humans)

Having said so, AI does have valuable applications! I am experimenting with the use of AI to create seamless textures for 3D creations, for example... but it needs rules!

 

[Fantasmo]

And to make a simple example: Soon there will only be AI content on this site, with "every user posting 5 "worthless" AI creations a day", the costs to run the site will skyrocket and the site will go, because it cannot be funded any more... that's where the immediate risks are...

 

[Luises]

Lets remove the pink "technology blindness" glasses for a moment.
Photography largely DID end art... or do you still see painters living from doing scenic paintings or portrays, to hang in appartements? It opened new areas of art though...
Phonograph and radio are invalid references, there is no creation, just distribution...
Similar with Television and cinema...
Computer: The computer is only a tool so far! It changes work, enables us to do more, with less effort...

In my post I'm not judging wether the new technologies replaced the old ones. Instead, I try to highlight what people thought about the new technologies when they arrived. And note that in every single case of my list the old tech has not died.

The closest case to a deceased technology is paintings. Yes, photography largely ended the portrait painting business. But note that I say "business", not "art". In the 21st century, you can easily find painters and buy pictures from them. Not only that, there is a whole new world in digital art, works made by skillful creators which simply weren't possible before the arrival of the computer. Platforms like Instagram and Etsy have allowed artists to sell not only in their local town, but all over the world, and let you to buy an oil landscape from somebody in another continent. Furthermore, nowadays most painters use digital cameras and smartphones as a tool. They allow them to quickly take an image of something they think is word of an oil picture, and they free models from having to pose for endless hours.

No technology is good or bad in itself. It depends on how we use it.

I must say that the AIs won't fill Internet with zero information value... because the Internet already has plenty of it! Just give a visit to Twitter, Facebook, or any corporate-run blog. AIs are not better than the typical intern with no experience and an IQ under 100; but they aren't worse, either. Those people are who, as you say, are blindly using AIs. Because they lack the judgement to tell quality from bullshit. But those people would create mediocre content if they had to write it themselves, too.

I think we agree on AI generated art. The inflatable doll simile is really great -- may I borrow it?

The fool who finds good enough a plastic doll or an AI-generated picture can serve himself in AliExpress or PornGPT (I bet it won't be long before such a service shows up -- I give it until the end of the year). But I'd say most of us are here because we value human created content.

But let's return to @Doragon original question, about wether or not to allow AI-generated content on CF. I propose the following: disallow "pure" AI-generated texts and images, and allow original content based on AI output. The trick would be defining "based on" in a way that excludes taking a picture and changing its colors, applying a Photoshop filter to it, or any other trivial or non-creative modification.

 

[Doragon]

But let's return to @Doragon original question, about wether or not to allow AI-generated content on CF. I propose the following: disallow "pure" AI-generated texts and images, and allow original content based on AI output. The trick would be defining "based on" in a way that excludes taking a picture and changing its colors, applying a Photoshop filter to it, or any other trivial or non-creative modification.

I agree. And for the same reason why photography turned out to be a way to produce art instead of only taking a picture of a socalled reality. Art never portrays the outside, it shows the inside. A.I. can't do that in itself. But it might be used to get in touch with something inside and if you then shape and colour it to its true form, it becomes art. The more personal art becomes, the more it becomes recognizable to others - yes, I know, it's a paradox. Anyways, art is by definition always subjective, which means it is produced by a person. Not by some machine.

 

[Fantasmo]

Not only that, there is a whole new world in digital art, works made by skillful creators which simply weren't possible before the arrival of the computer.

Most what I see in digital art is far from "skillful". That's one of the points of digital art, after all: You no more need to have a clue about anatomy, it comes built into a model, all you have to do is "bend limbs", for example.
Same goes for drawing technique (what is instrumental for "personal style" and other stuff.)
As a result, people install DAZ and generate a paysite 2 days later, calling themselves "artists"...

Platforms like Instagram and Etsy have allowed artists to sell not only in their local town, but all over the world, and let you to buy an oil landscape from somebody in another continent.

Yes, that's why we need Etsy: The option to earn a living with doing art has gone away for everybody but people in "low salary countries"

Furthermore, nowadays most painters use digital cameras and smartphones as a tool. They allow them to quickly take an image of something they think is word of an oil picture, and they free models from having to pose for endless hours.

Sure, that's use of tools!

I must say that the AIs won't fill Internet with zero information value... because the Internet already has plenty of it! Just give a visit to Twitter, Facebook, or any corporate-run blog.

True, but so far it at least took some time to create crap (typing it), now it comes in seconds! This will be a new dimension!

AIs are not better than the typical intern with no experience and an IQ under 100; but they aren't worse, either. Those people are who, as you say, are blindly using AIs. Because they lack the judgement to tell quality from bullshit. But those people would create mediocre content if they had to write it themselves, too.

The problem was outlined above. AI and such technologies enable such people even more to flood us with their nonsense: The obstacle of "needing to invest time in an article / art" falls away!
I agree about the lack of judgement being a problem these days!

I think we agree on AI generated art. The inflatable doll simile is really great -- may I borrow it?

Sure

But let's return to @Doragon original question, about wether or not to allow AI-generated content on CF. I propose the following: disallow "pure" AI-generated texts and images, and allow original content based on AI output. The trick would be defining "based on" in a way that excludes taking a picture and changing its colors, applying a Photoshop filter to it, or any other trivial or non-creative modification.

Another approach: Allow AI generated stuff in a special sub-forum only, and delete it after a grace period of xx days. This will help reduce the data growth and will also prevent that the little remaining original art gets drowned under the flood

 

[Luises]

Most what I see in digital art is far from "skillful". That's one of the points of digital art, after all: You no more need to have a clue about anatomy, it comes built into a model, all you have to do is "bend limbs", for example.
Same goes for drawing technique (what is instrumental for "personal style" and other stuff.)
As a result, people install DAZ and generate a paysite 2 days later, calling themselves "artists"...

I'm talking about real artists, not people without judgement who thinks they are the new Rembrandt because they can buy oil and canvases in the local art store. But this is not a modern problem. In other epochs there have been bad artists, too. It's just that we only remember the good ones. For example, many people say the music from the 60s was better. And, sure, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Who... they all were wonderful and opened new ways for the pop-rock. But there were also forgettable groups which, well, have been justly forgotten. Search for the "Surfin' Bird" from "The Trashmen" if you want an example.

Anyway, I agree that easy access to creative tools democratizes art, but it also makes easier to produce works of lesser quality.

Another approach: Allow AI generated stuff in a special sub-forum only, and delete it after a grace period of xx days. This will help reduce the data growth and will also prevent that the little remaining original art gets drowned under the flood

It may be a possibility. I'd say that the most views (and thus the most bandwidth consumption) of an uploaded picture happen in the hours after it is posted, so I'm not sure that time-limiting them would solve the bandwidth problem. But as far as AI generated content is labeled as such and maybe placed in a dedicated subforum, I think it could work.

 

[Fantasmo]

It may be a possibility. I'd say that the most views (and thus the most bandwidth consumption) of an uploaded picture happen in the hours after it is posted, so I'm not sure that time-limiting them would solve the bandwidth problem. But as far as AI generated content is labeled as such and maybe placed in a dedicated subforum, I think it could work.

Bandwidth not, but I understand it is more an issue of overall size than bandwidth.
Bandwidth can only be solved with " general advertisement income", what would be a severe breach of privacy in such a delicate subject, or paid membership.
Or, like in this case, by cross-sponsorship from a related site, cruxdreams.com

 

[Fantasmo]

Anyway, I agree that easy access to creative tools democratizes art, but it also makes easier to produce works of lesser quality.

I am not sure if "democtratizes" is the correct term, rather "trivializes"...
All it takes to do classic art is paper, pencil and eraser... and skill!
All can be obtained by everyone...

 

[KageKamen]

For me, art is all about the creative process. For example, I do love Tolkien, not only because the vast world that he painted in his works, but over all for the process of decades that led him to create such a backdrop from the starting point of an imaginary tongue. In the same way, I enjoy @mp5stab and @Barbaria1 last work because it intrigues me how they have arranged that novel "conversation" form, and what plot twists they may have in mind. Or @markus work, on which we can see its chaotic but wonderful development in real time, thanks to his postings to the Pleasure in Suffering thread. In fact, it was his work which made me join CF.

Art is more than just the output. It's also all the roots from which artists draws their inspiration, and the creative process itself. For me, those are completely absent from an AI output. And that makes AI-generated art a lot less enjoyable.

But, remember, this is just my point of view. If you don't agree, I'd love to hear your arguments against it.

Wouldn't one of the most simple be just... not having this feeling? Or at least, considering it a dessert at best rather than part of the main course?

 

[TomiRex]

We had this craze and hype with the chess machines when they beat Kasparov, long ago.

Long ago, but the machines still do not understand chess. They don't even realize it's a game. Win or lose, it's the same to them. And how did the chess machine win, and how could it beat a chess master like Kasparov every time? It just has enough computing power to predict almost all branches the game could follow.

This AI, conversational, image-extrapolative, it just has enough computing power AND petabytes of data to sift through, in order to combine, bullshit, draw an amalgam of a 1000 pictures that all HAD TO BE DESCRIBED TO IT IN WORDS BY HUMANS so it could pick them after hearing your prompt because, without it, how could it know what to look for?

It's still just a chess machine that can always win. Yet chess is still there and people play people, because playing against the machine is pointless. Training - yes, playing, LOL.

 

[Luises]

I agree. I must add that the Kasparov-Big Blue "tournament" was a set of five games. Big Blue won the first two, because Kasparov was trying to play as he did against an human. The machine knew how humans played, responded correctly, and won. But then Kasparov noticed a pattern. And in the third game he tried to conceal his strategy under apparently nonsensical moves. Something that would have failed against a novel chess player. But Big Blue didn't have those moves in its database. Kasparov won this third game, and the remaining two.

As you say, a machine doesn't understand the game. It can not choose to play the game. And it lacks the kind of interaction you can get from an human player. Those beers after the game, when you talk about your strategy and try to understand what the other player tried to accomplish, even if he lose. Winning against a computer is less satisfactory than losing against an human. And, contrarily to machines, we play for the pleasure of it.

We are overestimating some dangers of AIs. And severely underestimating others. Like, what would happen if China, a country well known for the political censorship it imposes on its companies, becomes the world leader of AI?

Let's treat the AIs as what they are: an useful tool with its dangers and pitfalls, but which we have to develop, learn to use and take advantage of.

 

[TomiRex]

Just calling it ''intelligence'' is pure hype that the tech bro bullshit artists are launching into the public sphere to get more free money, as the crypto grift is slowly going down the drain and fading away.

Intelligence is learning umprompted, solving complex logical problems based on conscious observation. You can show any AI engine a match, a pile of wood, and the act of lighting a fire and tell it to light a fire. Without humans writing code instructing it in detail how to connect the dots in order to accomplish this feat, you could wait a century, nothing would happen.

Don't fall for the hype, it's just tech bro bullshit, a new grift to squeeze more money for the greedy. It's just 2020's raw huge computing power armed with petabytes of data off all kinds gathered mostly for free from the offline databases and internet, with a relatively simple UI that launches a statistical prediction, but with specific blocks that make sure it doesn't embarass its creators by sounding like Hitler or Charles Manson when it responds.

 

[aimar]

TomiRex,
it is not quite that easy.

The AI can analyze images from the computer tomograph better than any doctor.

With stored image material where diagnosed diseases are noted (let's call it statistics), this is the learning process of the AI.

And this is just a specific example of their possibilities.

 

[TomiRex]

It's still statistics and calculation of probability ''on steroids'', not intelligence, which is why there still is and there always will be a human doctor there.

I don't deny that there is a distant possibility we might develop an intelligent computer one day, but this is not it. This is hype. Without the big data fed to it by the widespread digitalization efforts no one would be very much impressed by the product of the current state of ''AI'' engines.