Can I downvote this more than once? Just enough already.

Happening already. Check out how the vehicle industry uses it as an example. Some cool YouTube videos on it

That's a bit compliconvolutated.

Indivolution: evolving from individuality

Spoken like a proper statistician and scientist.

Fortunately, I am neither, and am simply writing creatively. It's an opinion piece, intended to stimulate thought and discussion.

Your assertion of loss of creativity and originality based entirely on anecdotal evidence is unconvincing. Once you account for the self selecting nature of your sample data and your own frequency bias, it pretty much falls flat on its face.

I agree but It's not only how good or bad it will be. It's something that you can't kick out and exile. Look at piratebay, you can't get rid of that site.

[deleted]

Let’s pause for a moment and actually consider what AI technology is actually doing in order to translate or to give texts.

At a basic level, AI works by taking tons of existing data and identifying patterns. Those patterns are then used to give an answer for a question (ie. translate this…). These patterns are generally pretty basic (like, ChatGPT seems to be pretty advanced, but all it is doing is predicting what the next word/phrase is based on a massive database of writing.) AI has absolutely no conception of what it is saying; it is just spitting out a series of patterns as generated by its algorithm and background data.

Working backwards, this tells us that an AI has to have developed a pattern before it can give an answer, and my extension, it has to have already seen a lot of data that supports the answer. By extension, somebody would have had to ALREADY done a whole lot of translating and then given those translations to the AI before it can be useful to you. And, because languages change over time (through slang and local phrases, among other methods), this inherently means that there is a perpetual gap in the knowledge of any translation AI that makes having SOME people available to translate absolutely necessary, at least barring a complete reinvention of how AI is currently done.

The Internet killed my individuality when it kept showing me 50 posts that said the same thing as mine that people posted before me. But it hasn't harmed my craftsmanship.

That would be sick. We have this interactive 3D model of our plant you can virtually walk through, click on shit, see part numbers and wire numbers. It wouldn't be to far of a jump to go virtual reality or, even cooler, augmented reality.

I f***ing hope the human race never gets to that point.

> AI media will not be mass produced

Actually, it will be mass-produced. But put a pin in that.

> It will be as individualized and addictive as your Facebook and tiktok feed.

And I suppose the issue there is that a lot of people actively reject such addiction. I, for example, almost never use Facebook and can't even remember ever using TikTok. I will almost certainly be the exact opposite when it comes to synthetic media, but if reactions to AI art are any indication (and I mean on places like DeviantArt, YouTube, and Pixiv, not the Twitter pro-human artist protests), there's little chance that synthetic media will replace all media. Some people are just contrarians, while others have anthropocentric bias.

However, there is one other issue, and this is where I say to pull out the pin.

Media that is individualized is great and all, and we'll indulge in it without question. But that's certainly not all there'll ever be.

See, I agree wholeheartedly that AI is going to generate media very soon, and has even already started doing so. I even agree that most people will use synthetic media to generate media individualized to them. Where I disagree strongly is in the idea that humans stop sharing media and instead lose ourselves in our own fantasy worlds.

The cold fact is, humans are social apes. If we create something or like something, we're going to share it with others. Hence why I tend to think that synthetic media is being severely overhyped by some people, even as I say "we're going to create multimedia franchises in our bedrooms and could live in synthetic media bubbles within the better part of a decade."

Even if we become transhuman, I don't see social interaction being something we'll elect to take away. If anything, transcending our basic humanity towards higher levels of cognition only seems to make it more likely we'll engage in social interaction, but on levels we can't fathom. Not to mention I strongly doubt most people will become transhuman anyway.

If you value social interaction (and most people do as humans are hardwired for it), even if you spend a lot of time generating synthetic media, you're not going to completely lose yourself in your own fantasies.

The kneejerk reaction to synthetic media, and the Singularitarian hype for it, often acts as if the human need for social interaction doesn't exist. But I present the theory that, provided nothing bad happens, there will still be people attending live concerts and going to movie theaters and viewing live theatrical performances and seeing live sports performances in 30 years. That if YouTube is still around by then, a majority of videos will have some aspect of synthetic media to them— V-tubers and AI personalities playing fully AI-generated games for example, or AI personalities of historical figures discussing history to synthesized images and videos and simulations— but you could also still find humans giving their own thoughts and creations, and indeed, "human-created" might even be a lucrative tag.

I know it's easy to say "You probably would have predicted that the Internet was a fad in 1995" to any criticism of the dominant narratives of synthetic media. I'm not saying the Internet is a fad and that no one will ever download music because they will always value vinyl and CDs; if anything, I was predicting that before most people here even thought it was possible in their lifetimes. I'm saying that the opposite argument, that no one will ever buy music or attend live concerts because they can simply download mp3s or stream music, is just as fallacious.

I'm not saying that no one will ever use synthetic media to do anything because human-created art will always matter more; I'm saying that the arguments that we'll only ever consume media tailor-made for us and our preferences is one day going to be seen as just as outrageously silly of a prediction.

And that's why I agree with OP. Especially considering another angle to this: I think most people will utilize synthetic media to some extent, such as to edit existing media or create memes or something to that level, but very few will actually create whole movies, video games, and franchises, at least regularly. This is more likely with older generations and the hipsters of younger generations. It's easy to forget that most people alive today were born before the year 2000, and that in America, more than 2/3s of the population is older than 30. Maybe I'm not seeing something that others can, but thinking about this from the laziest and most consumeristic perspective combined with technophobia, I can absolutely see the majority of Boomers and Gen Xers just barely using synthetic media, such as to "make the fourth movie of the Dollars Trilogy" or "give me another season of Firefly" or "give us the fourth main Nirvana album" but otherwise stopping there and, for the most part, sharing whatever's created before moving on.

The fact that so much media is so easily replaced by AI is proof that a ton of media was already created by handing a prompt to an unknown creator. The fact that this creator was previously human has nothing to do with the prompt. The challenge in the future is going to be supporting artists who previously made money fulfilling prompts, until they create something they actually care about and can support themselves with.

Oh you mean like corporations do already?

I like this take. Hard to call a guy a luddite who chooses not to use technology only so he himself can learn more.

Although, if you judged someone else for using a translator instead of learning multiple language though you'd circle right back to luddite because then you'd be shaming the use of technology at that point.

I'm thinking learning is great but people only have so much sand in their hourglass to spend and even if they aren't studying Portuguese they could be studying something else instead.

Also a universal translator can't exist because if you made one I'd invent a dumb language just to say the device can't interpret it.

Microsoft is testing software within their 'Teams' program that will translate spoken language in real time between multiple parties.

I'd estimate that by 2025 ( 2 years from now ) human translators will start disappearing at a rapid pace. Call Center workers will also start seeing large layoffs due to AI at this point as well.

Source: I work in AI and have friends all over the industry.

It'd be the exact same if programmed to make money for it's creator

AI will change everything but it also won’t really change anything. There will always be people that are artistic and creative and that invent new things that others enjoy. Those people won’t be replaced by AI generic rehashing algorithms any more than they were replaced by the advent of mass marketing from the last century, despite all the changes to our society that brought. Point is, like the internet, like TV, like radio, like the printing press, it will lead to great changes in our society but it won’t change our inherent nature.

That goes for any type of new technology. One of the first questions asked is "how can we weaponize it?"

Agree this is the biggest threat, think about it if a true AGI were developed , the nation to get it first could simply ask it things like what's the "best way to rule the world" or "what's the best way to control all vital resources" ,. "what's the fastest way to militarily defeat x,y,z country " and so on.... In. My mind there's no doubt this is how AGI would be used , because obviously if one country has it another is close behind, so it would be much easier to rationalize the need to dominate everyone to keep us all "safe" from misuse ...

I guess you're not getting what I'm saying then, because if nobody has any money, nobody is buying your shit, and then your company goes bankrupt.

Why not call it exactly that: Mass produced individuality (or MPI for short)

So you're saying quasi-sapient sex robots with lifelike locomotion, computer driven self-articulation, memory retention and adaptiveness can be a thing within the next few decades?

I get exactly what youre saying what youre not getting is that companies will not care either way