Most of the history of modern art is just a series of trolls searching for ever-more-ridiculous things to throw at the question "but is it art?" The answer is always yes. Every field, for every generation, has always had its cadre of conservative, myopic critics who insist the only real X is the X they grew up with. They always turn out to be wrong in the end, and the new X becomes so common that people forget it was ever controversial.

That's partly because the whole point of diamond is to gift something rare and beautiful.

(1) NFTs are a great example of artificial scarcity. They put a limit on number of copies and call it rare. Then base real money on rarity.

(2) Some people even tried to create a VR/meta earth and sell land as limited quantity when literally it can be as big as one wants it to be. It's frustrating enough to have high land prices in the real world so they went ahead and made it in the virtual one.

(3) Governments restricting the amount of land where houses can be built is another form of artificial scarcity. This is what creates high home prices.

That's a legal principle, not necessarily an ethical or moral principle.

You don't have to look very deep into history to find numerous example of unethical laws. Nor do you have to look much deeper to find laws that are immoral by any rational standpoint.

Obviously there's a lack of concurrence which is obvious both by the number of legal disputes over these matters as well as the wildly varying laws from country to country, some of which remain quite barbaric.

There may or may not be correlation between law and ethics, but I sure as hell wouldn't call them fundamental principles of ethics.

Eh, when A.I. can easily make TikTok length and style videos directly personalized to the user that keep the youngins entrained constantly, I doubt they would care that it wasn't made by a human.

I seen’t it

Again, they typed something in… and software did the rest. Thats not a skill.

There is prompting and thinking. It helps curate imagination

[deleted]

Yeah it is. Check out Protogen and Elldreth's Stable Diffusion CKPT

My point is not everyone who does good deeds is saved. You must accept jesus as your lord and savior and good deeds follow. If good deeds dont follow then you havent committed yourself. Thats why the bible calls them fruits. They are not the tree, or the foundation. Jesus is. Regardless, It's good that you use the bible as a sort of code, i think its fantastic. But your missing out on the depth of what it truly is about.

I disagree, service of a greater good and moving the outlook away from self is exactly what everyone needs. Even if Jesus was some santa figure, it would still be preferable to the humanist view and trying to be good for the sake of doing good things. As the bible also says, if you build your house on sand then when a storm comes it wont last. Your good deeds do nothing when things really hit the fan.

Its not art. Thats ridiculous.

Wasn't sure lol.

I think that's the point of his comment.

Clear moral restrictions are only one way of influencing a language model. It's also a very obvious one that makes it clear what's being restricted.

The true problem is that the AI's dataset will always influence its outputs in ways we won't always be able to understand. Feed the system trash: you'll get trash in return. Feed the system in a way that helps a specific agenda: you'll get what you want.

"Moral bloatware" is the direct result of using human language to answer questions posed by humans. Comparing human morality to Go feels very supervillain monologue.

Ai already beat go..

Chatgpt is more capable than most humans in countless things.. Now, it still makes logical errors, but, uh, have you spoken to many humans? They make logical errors constantly, and most aren't capable of writing at a fraction the level of chatgpt..

Now is it sentient? No... But it's definitely human level on a great many things..

Yeah, the majority of humans are simply stupid sheep. I think people think that Stable Diffusion isn't real art 🎨 🖼 🎭 🎨 ! Which is bs!!! Some people wouldn't want a female companion bot because they claim it wouldn't be as real lol!!! But really all options are completely valid!

No, I don't like horror movies

I said 10 years, but don't think it'll be much more than that.

I think the tech will be capable sooner, but big movie creations times take a while. Couple years for the tech to mature, few years where indie and cutting edge studios experiment, then a couple production lifecycles for it to be full mainstream.

Also the "substantially" criteria is going to be a tricky point, because as the AI tools get better, the less time you will need to spend interacting with them. So the time on conventional tasks decreases in absolute, but remains a high percentage because the total time needed decreases as well.

On the other hand, as AI tools make it easier to make movies, I think there will be a significant increase in both quantity and quality at the indie & amateur level.

after seeing https://phenaki.video/

hard to say, ask me again when we see the next generation that surpasses the above.

no way to tell how easy temporal consistency is going to be, bad temporal consistency will relegate it to youtube and 'b-movie'/'low budget TV'

This is not like moving from the 80's into the 90's where bad CG was the best they had and so it was used. This needs to beat out the best of the best CG graphics otherwise the movie will be panned for shitty effects.

it could go through a period in comping and effects. Stuff like 'style matching' two clips that sorts out the lighting and color grade, or adding muzzle flashes and squibs by painting a mask on a keyframe and let the AI handle the rest, so adding to existing structure rather than making it all up wholesale

I suppose soon we'll be seeing a 'whisper' like AI to do auto Audio Description on scenes and acting direction, to caption existing films. (using existing AD could be a good contrastive learning technique)

once it happens, the world will completely change in a matter of weeks

Couldn't agree with this sentiment any more.

The vast majority of people have zero understanding or appreciation for what has been achieved with these generative AI models. Just look at the whole #AITrend thing that was happening. Being able to create portraits of yourself was just a "trend" to the masses, no thought given to how that's even possible. I think to most people, it's no more impressive than a Snapchat filter.

Same with ChatGPT. I've tried to have conversations with people I know are very smart and all have been very dismissive of it. I don't know if it's just a coping mechanism.

This is flat out false.

Saw

On the contrary, as we are seeing now, many will claim it's not a "real" intelligence.