This is so fucking stupid.

It is not so much about the algorithms as the combination of algorithms, hardware, and software. IDK how likely it is that Skynet hacks the nukes. But during the Cold War we came very close to mutual assured destruction. So if we don't go into deescalation mode how can we prevent this?

See, that's true hive mind right there

Utter Nonsense!

a) Nothing AI produces is copyrighted. Studios and clients need copyright ownership, the AI can't sign a work for hire contract to pass ownership of product that they can resell LEGALLY.

Current Laws would have to totally change for commissions to vanish.

b) AIs have limits. The more corporate AI is the more limits it has and the less things it can draw.

Dude you clearly have no idea how AI works and it seems like you don't even know how to make money as illustrator, so shut the fuck up. It's like you've never signed a contract with a client before nor signed a contract with a company to do work for hire.

Art is not made by you, art is ""made"" by people when they consider it art. If many people see in the human artistic styles inspired and the concept devised by the user enough artistic value and meaning, it will be considered art in that society. It is not up to you or me to decide that.

. . .too real, I've got a weird pain in my shoulder today. I guess I'll just die then

> More I understand how Neural Networks work, more similarities I see.

Dunning Kruger effect.

Imperfections are no less a thing than any other thing in a piece, and learn things is what AI is good at. Just say.

Porn and Googling if that weird pain in my shoulder at 3am might be cancer? Yeah, I'm okay with that.

And 4. End up lacking commissions entirely because the EXPLICIT end goal of AI art is to generate whatever people want for free and artists who stick their fingers in their ears and naively call basic, stated cause and effect future predictions a “doomsday prophecy”. “Nah, technology will just magically stop progressing before it affects me negatively”. Though with you you’ll probably alienate all your clients with your completely insufferable personality and ego long before that happens.

It need not be 'full dive HiveMind.' for example /r/hsi

[deleted]

My man misses the entire point of art live in 4K

[deleted]

No, it’s not like AI just dreams up art, it’s just a tool. Any real artist would pick up on this and start to learn to leverage it for gain. And, hand created art will just move into a more niche, and possibly more profitable arena. Supply and demand.

In fact, many think tanks think, AGI will bring about UBI, which will intern free people up to follow creative passions. Which would mean more art available.

Artists have three choices now:

1. produce things AI cant possibly do - oil painting, sculpture, literally any art medium that's not 2d digital painting and sell this art in space where the AI isn't present. [stepping back to truly traditional art]
2. ignore ais and maybe get crushed out of the market by artists who adopted AIs into their workflow [2012 prediction territory of how bad it will get, depends entirely on how laws will change]
3. use ais and get more done and do the jobs that were IMPOSSIBLE to do before and get paid more [trailblazing]

This.

>LessWrong crowd assumes that this task is so insurmountable hard, that is only solvable by creating a perfectly Aligned ASI that would solve it for you.

Possibly because an ‘aligned human civilization in which nobody could unleash an AI’ has some seriously totalitarian implications.

Artists aren't replaced by other artists. This is just a new player in the game. Art is inspiration and vision. That won't stop because a program can mimic it. A true artist will continue their craft because they are driven to express their own vision. AI will likely be adapted and incorporated into that vision.

Art for art's sake will never die.

I like using the zero sum analogy.

If you bake 5 cakes and robots bake 100 cakes, you now have 105 cakes. Even if the robots bake fantastic cakes, I'm actually irrationally drawn to the human-made ones because they're more special due to being human-made.

That's no way to sustain an economy, sure, but if anything, things are even better now that there's an abundance of cakes and I can choose which ones I want.

Maybe early on, I'd prefer the robot-made cakes, but over time, I'll definitely start focusing on the human-made ones.

Similarly, art is not a zero sum game intrinsically. Now when there's a job to be done, yes. When you need 100 cakes and you can only bake 5 in the time it takes robots to make 100, clearly you go with the robots.

Similarly, if I'm looking for a good logo for a product, I'm probably going with a machine-created one if it's just as good or better than human-created ones.

As a writer, I absolutely will use natural language generation tools to help me write or even outright create stories for me, but that doesn't mean I'm never going to write again. If anything, having generative AI is only reigniting my interest in writing myself. I'd love to generate whole novels with AI from small prompts.... but I'd also love to generate texts to edit into my own style, or write in my own style and transfer it into another, or just write just to write. I'd love to see if I can learn from AI-generated text.

It's similar to how chess-playing AIs didn't destroy chess. If anything, human players became better by learning from superhuman chess AIs. A similar thing is happening in Go right now.

There will absolutely be a massive glut of AI-generated media. AI-generated movies, games, TV shows, books, comics, etc. But that's not going to stop dedicated humans from trying their own hand at it just to do it, and there'll be an audience for that.

People like saying "You won't be able to tell the difference."

But from my experience, 95% of people who use AI-gen tools actually do take the time to announce or mark that what they've made is AI-generated. I don't see that changing. Especially if regulatory laws pass.

And once these tools have spread sufficiently throughout society and human-made art becomes the new niche, it becomes the new hot commodity in and of itself. True, online you do have to trust what you're seeing is what it says it is, but I think there'll be enough ways to make sure in due time.

It's the more expensive things, like major motion pictures that require tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to make, that I think will become slightly more obsolete. And even then, if the market still exists for them for whatever reason, who knows.

That's the big takeaway: "Who knows!"

I've been following synthetic media's rise ever since 2017. I called all of what's happening.

Nowadays, I've been shifting to a less "destroy everything" mindset to one that accepts that people will choose to maintain the status quo if it can be helped.

Can you calm down little dude? Congrats on your personal artbot but this conversation isn’t about you and how much of a radical cyber pioneer you think you are. It IS about those “4 second generators” and the massive impact they’re having on artists’ livelihood. Not everyone is an enlightened tech god on your level who can just copy your incredible trailblazing.

Wow. Sweet deal! This is the gold:

> First off, the ownership will be split across three groups. Microsoft will hold 49%, VCs another 49%, and the OpenAI foundation will control the remaining 2% of shares. > > If OpenAI starts making money, the profits are distributed differently across four stages: > > - First, early investors (probably Khosla Ventures and Reid Hoffman’s foundation) get their money back with interest. > - After that Microsoft is entitled to 75% of profits until the $13B of funding is repaid > - When the initial funding is repaid, Microsoft and the remaining VCs each get 49% of profits. This continues until another $92B and $150B are paid out to Microsoft and the VCs, respectively. > - Once the aforementioned money is paid to investors, 100% of shares return to the foundation, which regains total control over the company.

Same as ai art (img2img, in painting and out painting, etc.)

I’m curious as to what other art forms your don’t consider creative since they’re elements of randomness to every form of art

>That’s not what 99.9999999999% of people who make AI art are doing and isn’t even the point of image generation

Exactly! Why would I do what 99.9999999999% of people are doing? That's how you don't get paid! The key to getting paid is to stay ahead of everyone, be the 0.000001% who can do impossible things.

>Also it still isn’t your work because you didn’t manually create it lol.

I did manually create it, fool. I don't use the 4 second generators that ouput generic, random useless art. My AI assists me on upscaling and minor detail and concept development, it doesn't replace me at all. It helps complete parts that are impossible to do as a human because they're too time consuming.

>In the next couple years no one is gonna commission you because artist input will not be needed at all.

Absolute Luddite nonsense, you're just spouting a doomsday theory akin to the 2012 prediction without realizing it.

I design AI models, I can't be fired because my AI systems are superior to the corporate, censored garbage. Point me to a single multi-million corporate AI that can draw a human butt, go head. They don't fucking exist!

Artists who use AIs cannot be fired because they reach far beyond limits of human and generic corporate AI powers.

We don't actually know how or when or if the AI will be able to overcome fractal nature of problem like drawing fingers properly.If 100% finger stabilization is somehow achieved I'll simply move onto making animations.

If animation stabilization is 100% achieved, I'll move onto designing limitless game worlds - the more AI can do the more I can do as art director.

That hasn’t really been the case for some time now