You can be “creative” with it in that you’re inputting your ideas but you aren’t creating with it. You can order a commission with interesting ideas but you’re not making a creative work. The actual creation is not in your hands.

Are you saying you can’t be creative with AI? If it was a full replacement it wouldn’t need human input also diffusion models don’t photobash (which tbh is still fair use in some cases)

A machine can cycle oxygen through an air sac. Is there any point to breathing?

You'll do art for yourself, because you enjoy it. There won't be a commercial incentive to do it.

I've enjoyed writing poetry for 20 years now. It's a dead art. My sonnets were never going to pay the rent. I understand what it's like to practice at something that has no monetary value, and visual artists will too soon.

Scientific American and articles by PhD neuroscientists are anti scientific nonsense? Okay, reflexively close your mind to anything you don’t want to believe

There's still a fine line between posting insightful content and being a blog-spammer. I appreciate most of your posts and consider you one of the better content creators here and in /r/machinelearning, but I'd urge some restraint in the way you go about shot-gunning it across all of Reddit. Like, this obviously does not belong on /r/TIL and /r/python.

Why do you think AGI would be so profitable?

Open AI is not open anymore, and hasn't been for some time now. The not for profit closed and switched to a for profit corp and has been taking investor money ever since. They stopped sharing research with the public scientific community, dropped their mission statement, and started selling gpt as a product.

There is nothing at all open about openAI, they are owned by investors and will promote corporate interests like every other company. Do not trust them.

Did you not read the part where after a certain amount is paid back, OpenAI regains control of 100% of the shares?

Found only antiscientific nonsenses.

[deleted]

art is ultimately about expressing and sharing human emotion and experience which ai fundamentally cannot do, can ai make satisfying visual generations that are interesting to look at for commercial purposes? sure

can it make art? no

Is there any point in playing chess when Stockfish, AlphaZero, etc... can win against anyone? Computers have long surpassed humans in chess and other games, yet people still play professional chess and make careers out of it. Chess players have adapted to using computers to help them learn their mistakes and better tactics. I believe the same will happen with AI art, artists in the future (some even in the present) will use AI to help them make art, learn from it, and use it to explore new concepts.

Thanks! Glad, you found it useful!

Interesting take. Any concrete applications in mind that we could go and start? :)

Thanks! Glad, you found it useful and I am happy to have you aboard!

Thanks! Glad, you found it useful!

Fair comment! I agree, they do not need any AGI-esque thing. The "thing" just needs to be truly useful and they are out of the deal.

Thanks for your input. Imho, distributing compute load to consumer devices is not as easy as it sounds.

[deleted]

In terms of whether you should do art or not, I would say it depends on the reason you’re doing art. If you’re making art to make money, then yeah AI is going to be better than you just by virtue of the fact that it can crank out 1000 pieces of art per second and some of them are bound to be decent art. If however you’re making art because you can’t not make art -because it’s part of you and you need the outlet- then who cares if you can still get paid? Keep doing art because you need it for your mental health. You’ll figure out what you need to do to pay the bills. And who knows, maybe you’ll even hit it big and become one of the few “analog artists” left

If it's something like Transcendence or this particular Deus Ex ending, yes.

Although it is a bit ironic that art was first (because artists publish everything they do), the truth is that the same techniques apply to any creative activity (including technical problem solving). So by the time that AI can actually replace artists (it can't yet), it will replace everything else.

>You can't really teach a lot of this stuff at universities because by the time you finish your degree, the stuff you learned is allready mostly obsolete.

Cybersecurity perhaps, but not AI. Learning basics like math (especially calculus) is still very much relevant and needed in ML, and really the AI field hasn't changed as much or as quickly as you think. Also, university is a path to academia, not just work in the tech field. You don't always need a degree. A lot of tech companies will still consider you if you can prove you know your stuff, which can include certifications (much quicker and often more relevant training) or just getting hands on and learning things, and finding a way to get your foot in the door. More difficult perhaps, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. Even better would be if you can bring unique ideas to the table, which is something a degree alone won't provide.

Googling “brains are not computers article” will give a few well articulated opposing perspectives, also the brain can’t really be taken as a separate entity from the body, unlike software which can be completely disembodied

Are you sure? More I understand how Neural Networks work, more similarities I see.