Also highly subjective. Depends on who you ask.

People want more choice in their mind and body and surroundings. They believe this choice will make them happier than than they are now, because they can solve diseases, gain more understanding of their own life, and experience more of existence. Maybe it leads to more life satisfaction, maybe not. Maybe it also meets your definition of a meaningful life, and maybe not. But this is why people want it.

What if it comes at the expense of new lives coming into being?

Why? Instead of getting angry, why don't you explain your point of view more clearly?

It fooled enough people into thinking that what it was making was art to win aan art contest. For art. The thing it's not supposed to be able to make.

[deleted]

Bad is subjective and highly personal. If people want to live longer and experience new things, and if this makes them a bit happier, why not?

I mean that universally for all of us, not as some slight to you.

AI has never suffered. It has never been hungry or fought in a war. And it doesn't know our experiences yet. Unless we all walk around with chips in our heads. If there are cameras everywhere, AI can probably know what we feel every second of every day. But not in the I have been through that before sense. More in the sense f(4, 6, 9) = 42. But we have reduced society to GDP, inflation, and interest rates. So who cares? Entertainment is getting better. Food is plentiful because... Anyway if the world economy grows or at least doesn't shrink too much, if our material needs are met, that would be our life. Eat, drink, be merry. Let AI do all the rest. Hey, we know that certain continents might not profit for whatever reason at first, but maybe they will catch up. I mean, who cares that the AI companies are exploiting open source software, Wikipedia, and seven other types of organisations. It is all fine as long as we have our daily meals and realistic VR because we sure don't want to spend time in the real world if we can help it. In my opinion.

[deleted]

One day you will die, and it's not clear that this is ultimately a bad thing in the long run.

ok, this is only for the 1% or maybe the 5%... everyone else? will take the cheaper version, or china goods wouldn't be so popular. When you are struggling, you aren't going to spend more money because "sentimental", you want to spend as little as possible and still get what you want. Walmarts destroyed most local owned home town business as they could sell cheaper, it it wasn't about money, they wouldn't have.

>you could lose yourself in the process

Yeah, we should just wait around to die instead. That's a brilliant idea and zero people have ever suggested it before.

Humanity is NOT ready to share this planet with a second sapient species, even an artificial one of our own making, given that we still wage war amongst ourselves.

Yep. Really hard to stay active in this sub.

I'm sorry who are the talented people you think I'm attacking? Art critics? Or the people who invented things like Dada, pop art, and whatever the hell you call it when you wrap famous landmarks in plastic wrap. I'm not saying those people weren't artists, I'm saying their whole purpose was to challenge our conception of what "counts" as art (arguably this is now a requirement to be taken seriously by the art world).

As for anger, I'm not the one responding twice to the same comment bruh. You're entitled to your opinion of course, but prepare for disappointment. AI art is going to permeate every corner of your visual field within a few years, because most of the imagery we see on a daily basis is advertising, and businesses don't care if something is "real" or not. I feel really bad for all the commercial artists out there - they've already had to give up on free expression so they can get paid, and now it's going to be even harder to find a job. UBI can't come fast enough.

Most people are just kind of average and say what they need to say to cope with what is unknown and/or out of their control, and not feel too bad throughout the day so they can take care of their kids and get their jobs done and stuff. The arrogant “Of COURSE” layered on top is just added cope. I take it with a grain of salt.

The code isn't good enough nor does the AI have a good enough understanding to implement the code itself. It's all quite basic code and often has errors.

The OpenAI team might be using ChatGPT to help design the next iterations but it's not exactly possible to "cut out the middleman" at the moment All the games/programs that have been made using ChatGPT have only been possible because people can actually check if the code is good, see if the program works and write followup prompts if necessary. It's not within ChatGPT's capabilities to actually see if it's code works. It may spit out a working answer sometimes but it can't actually test if it works itself and as such it can't improve without the aid of a human.

[deleted]

Are you saying that only Rembrandt paintings are "real" art? That a four year old can't produce art at all? Ok...

[deleted]

Absolutely, in fact I'd argue that sentimental value is the main value for most of the shit people buy. If we cared only about the functionality, we wouldn't have artisanal woodworking, or small batch beers, or handmade sweaters. Literally everything we owned would be mass produced, since that's always cheaper (and usually better-designed). People wouldn't be drooling over unboxing videos, because products would come in unbleached cardboard packaging, devoid of any imagery or cutesy "getting started" pamphlets.

But you who does buy the cheapest, least exciting version of everything? A business. In a capitalist economy, sentimentality is just an expensive distraction. So sure, individuals may not feel much reverence for an AI-generated painting. But say you're working in the design department trying to come up with ideas for an upcoming trade show exhibit. Your boss wants to see something tomorrow morning. You could take the day to sketch out a few ideas...but instead you spend a few minutes clicking around in Midjourney, generating dozens of different permutations. Sure, some of them are garbage, but some of them went in directions you never would have thought of yourself. You pick your favorite designs and forward them to your boss before lunchtime. Meanwhile, your more traditional coworker is over there with their paper and markers, still grinding away on their first sketch. Their end result is certainly nice, but your boss has already chosen a design, and is now wondering if they should take down that job listing for a third designer.

My point is, a huge percentage of the economy is driven by business decisions, not individual decisions, and businesses couldn't care less whether something is "real". If we're lucky, the increased productivity from AI will free up more people's time to spend on artisanal crafts, and more individuals will be able to afford that kind of good.

[deleted]

> If ChatGPT can generate code from simple prompts, then what's stopping OpenAI from setting up a positive coding feedback loop for it to work on its own fork of itself? > > I'll come right out and say it: why isn't ChatGPT the seed for a proto-AGI?

Being generous, the code written by ChatGPT is at best at the level of a mediocre first year IT student. It can write simple boilerplate based on solutions it's already seen, but has limited ability to actually solve complex problems.

This is still an incredibly impressive achievement and it blows my mind every time I see it in action. But it's about as likely to make the next major breakthrough in AI research as our imaginary mediocre first year IT student is.

It's hard not to imagine a point where AI is able to improve itself faster than humans can, thus essentially writing the next version of itself. But we're not there yet.

Skill is not a requirement for art, but even if it was, coming up with an interesting prompt is far from trivial.