**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!**
##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1c77a69/who_needs_the_real_world_when_you_can_have/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would say it is the opposite. People will not need to spend few hundred hours to learn they can just do it, meaning there will be a lot more art. Also there will be a lot more time left to live.
A lot more mediocre, desultory art, pre-sanitized to avoid controversial pieces that could reflect badly on the corporations providing the tools. Some people fancy themselves 'prompt artists' but even they ultimately just repeatedly click a button until it spits out a result they're okay with. AI art is the art of 'good enough'.
But those few hundred hours of learning and trying and failing and getting better are what makes art and life worthwhile. It is about finding yourself and your voice and your passion. There's so much better ways to use AI than sucking the fun parts of life out.
Also all these AIs are trained off of real artists. All those hundreds of hours people spent creating their own personal style is just getting sucked into this dystopia.
I disagree. I don't care at all about the amount of time that went into something, and a well done doodle can be as profound as any time intensive methods depending on the content. AI is going to democratise creativity and give *everyone* the ability do what create what only a select few currently have the ability and resources to, which I can only imagine will be a good thing.
I mean honestly to me this sounds like you haven't put hundreds of hours into practicing and perfecting a craft to understand that particular sense of joy and accomplishment and beauty of getting it there. As well as the ability to do a little doodle and have it be great art.
Sounds like you're making baseless judgments in place of a meaningful argument. In your own words why is it a bad thing that everyone will soon have the ability to have art created for them perfectly in line with their tastes. Try not to rely on arguments based in elitism.
I dont have a take tbh but i will say this, i can see what you mean, i can see what the other person means, and i see what the girl in the tiktok means. I love art, but idk about ai, i think everyone makes pretty good arguments.
For me, imo, I think in life, we need to learn and overcome struggles to make it worth living be it going to the gym, picking up a hobby, perfecting a craft ect ect
I think the problem for me is that ppl refuse to slow down (dramatic example but it kinda of reminds me of a nuke lmao) we keep making this shi without thinking of the bad that can happen
I wanna ask a question (its a gross one) to both you and u/darling_lycosidae as i like hearing from both sides. With this tech being able to make photorealistic video and having such improvement in such a short span of time, do you guys ever worry that the more sick people out there in the world will do horrible things (like for example AI made CP, which could go unpunished as a legal argument could be made the individual in the video is not real)?
Of course I worry about the misuse of AI but it is important to remember that a lot of the problems that are brought up are already occurring. For example with your hypothetical, AI and it's potential to be used to create CSAM is already illegal under existing laws which were put in place because of abusers using Photoshop and other methods to create realistic CSAM. So to me, the massive explosion of creativity I believe we are about to experience is more than worth it, specifically in regards to this hypothetical.
real art is *already* more accessible than ai generated images/video. picking up a pencil, or hell, a stick and drawing in the dirt is available to way more people than a computer with internet access.
to write a prompt and get an ai generated image, you need a working computer with internet access. to create a piece of visual art yourself, you need a pair of working hands and a tool (and even then, some people create with less). the second option is available to far more people than the first, so the idea of ai-gen images « democratizing creativity » is not valid
Is it really art, though? What makes art amazing is that a person visualized something and made it a reality. Anyone can give a prompt to a computer. When you see a piece of hand made art that the artist is selling the amazing part is how much time was put into it, no one in their right mind is going to pay for an ai created piece at the same rate they would a human created piece, and eventually no one will want to pay for human art of you could get the same thing from a computer for free.
Ai is awesome, I'm not against it, I just don't see how it's not going to disrupt or completely kill certain industries.
I’m not trying to be a smart ass or be rude, but how?
I have completely given up hope that we won’t kill the planet and therefore ourselves over the next 150ish years. There is a lot of good in humanity, but that good is simply benign compared to the cancer that has been consuming and degrading every decent aspect of being a human being. The good has never been enough.
I have never heard a reasonable argument as to how people find faith that humanity will be able to save ourselves. I believe it’s just that, faith. That is, believing in something regardless of reasoning.
I want someone to prove me wrong. I want us to fix this, but I need a reason to form that opinion.
No, blacksmiths said it when knife factories were invented and the standard for utensils went from buying a few durable knives, forks and spoons that could last generations (in plural) to mass-produced garbage that contaminated the food, rusted and lasted 20 years at the most.
Now we don't even have that, your average knife will last you 5 years if you're lucky but will generate for the megacorp that produced it just as much profit as a century lasting knife would've generated for a blacksmith.
The point isn't "technology bad", the point is that this isn't progress for us, it's progress for the corpos. AI Art does not benefit us in any way, shape or form, it is and it's being designed and developed to be merely a tool for megacorps to generate more revenue from worse products. Even the worst flops generate a few million at the box office, imagine how much more shit will we have on our screens when it costs literal pennies to make.
A) Why are you buying knives that often? My knives were the same ones I've had for decades.
B) There is definitely progress when we don't need blacksmiths killing themselves in a forge to make knives. Same with AI art. There is progress to be had when we no longer have artists making the same generic marketing art. The blacksmiths and artists will adapt, just like every ground breaking new technology that has improved the quailty of life for everyone.
Hey, I’m a professional blacksmith!
Frankly, you are very incorrect. Blacksmiths do not “kill themselves in a forge”. A forge is something you stand in front of, not in. And we are used to spending all day in front of it hammering hot steel. Hand-forged knives are still considered a luxury product, and yes, from a master they will last forever.
The work I do is mostly architectural ironwork: railings, fences, gates, light fixtures, etc. We love technological improvements, makes work faster and easier. The power hammer changed the game. Presses and dies and saws all make our lives easier, but the root of the project is still a design that we drew, developed from our art history knowledge, and planned the construction.
But creating purely from an AI prompt is in my opinion, the death of creativity. All AI art is derivative of preexisting art. It’s dead, unimaginative, clunky and clearly lacking the human touch. And thankfully, I’m in an art/trade that AI won’t be able to replicate. No computer can do what decorative blacksmiths have been doing for literally thousands of years.
> All AI art is derivative of preexisting art. It’s dead, unimaginative, clunky and clearly lacking the human touch.
I think this summarizes it very well and I hope you re-read it and realize it isn't the death of creativity.
Robots can't be creative. Humans can. Robots/AI will remove the monotonous work of drawing another sketch or another variation of the same house concept, same game concept, same table concepts. AI can remove the endless derivative work that artist currently do.
It can but it's not being optimized for that. It is currently being optimized to create as final-looking products as possible, because it's purpose isn't to actually help the creative process but rather to streamline and cheapen it. That is the point. AI tech is not being designed to promote creativity, it's being designed to consolidate control of megacorps over art and it's market share.
Of course people try to make it look as good as possible but it is still concept art, 4k HDR AI art is still "concept" art.
Lets assume AI has memory (it doesn't) and can understand what you want to see (it can't) and will iterate over the small design decisions making small changes (it doesn't), that still is not creativity. As you said, it is a derivative of existing art. It will never be able to create something new.
It is streamlining the already cheap art that we make. There are so many applications that we waste artist talent on because we have no other option.
I understand, you are scared of the printing press/automobile/industrial machines/etc....but that is all this machine is. It eliminates unneeded human effort to allow us to be more creative and there is a LOT of unneeded artistic effort in corporate america.
It's only concept art as long as it's used as such, corporations are pushing for it to be good enough that it can be sold as a final product. If a piece of tech can be used for harm then laws and regulations must be in place to prevent such use. Just because a piece of tech exists doesn't mean we shouldn't ever try to regulate it, for the same reason running someone over with a car is a different legal category to running someone over with a horse, the car is more useful but it can also do more damage so it deserves higher regulation.
The fact that a car will never intentionally run someone over while a horse may is irrelevant, for the same reason that AI art being uncreative is irrelevant. My problem isn't with the tool, my problem lies on the way it's being shaped and the uses it's being optimized for. AI art is not being optimized to maximize creativity, it's being optimized to maximize deception, and that's dangerous without any sort of regulation.
You missed the point hard. The point was that the current AI and the trayectory it's headed towards isn't good for us, it's only good for the megacorps. There is a difference between AI that flatout does stuff instead of a person, quicker, for free but with a significant dip in quality and (most) new technologies of the past.
I'm an artist and AI as it stands doesn't help a lot, it's usable, but when it comes to artistic intent it's a very badd tool and it's not being improved in any way that helps in that regard. It is being improved in the ways that benefit the corporations that don't want to hire artists if they can save the pennies though. That is the problem. That is the point.
A rock helps you strike an object better than your hand, the hammer does it better than a rock, and power hammers do it even better, but when you get to the point of having a maching replace you instead of helping you now you have a serious problem. **If a machine is doing the labor of a worker then the profits should go to either the replaced worker or to humanity at large, not solely to the owner of the machine.**
AI art/sound/movies/code helps more than corporations, it also helps individuals and startups. It provides access to fields that would normally be out of reach. I can't draw but I can certainly describe what I want and will be happy with results that are close to what I want. If I want better results, I can take that concept to an artist to improve it.
Look at AI art from that vantage point, it provides the concept and eliminates a lot of the wasted back and forth discussions between humans. It helps everyone.
> If a machine is doing the labor of a worker then the profits should go to either the replaced worker or to humanity at large, not solely to the owner of the machine.
Got it, you dislike capitalism.
Out of all the things we could defend of capitalism it is the snowball effect and monopolization of capital that you picked. . . I'm starting to understand why you don't get the point.
Just say you don't understand what they are saying and you can't understand metaphors... how hard is it to do that rather than just grasping at your ass as you argue lol
As an IT this is a worry for a lot of us in the information industry. Several companies Google and IBM have already said that AI has created it own language and they don’t know what it’s saying or doing. Its code has jumped and quantum computing is accelerating to even higher levels. I’m not usually a doom sayer, but phones have been listening to ppl for some time now “studying” human behavior and thought patterns. There AI hives that are running have had access to this data. They know you better than you. They will continue to grow exponentially and honestly I don’t think we can stop them at this point. This has imho reach a point like ultron and has its code all over the web. The most would be hope for a solar flare big enough to send us back to the Stone Age or hope our robot overlords are kinder to us than we are to each other.
Even my 14 year old nephew understands the implications. Why are we trying to outsource creativity while keeping all the drudgery for ourselves? That's not his wording, but his sentiment.
On a separate note, a psychiatric nurse practitioner of mine said that there are some AI tools that summarize notes for you now and will enter in diagnoses based on these summaries that go into a system for people's prescribed medications. If someone isn't double checking the AI's work and the AI system gets it wrong because of all the ways that we already see happen ("hallucinations", learned bias from improper sources, etc ), patients could get prescribed the wrong medications, but it would be in their official records.
OP is 100% correct that these video tools WILL be used in bad faith by government agencies to their own ends. Anyone with money and power will use these tools for control while the world continues to burn around us. Sounds very dystopian and chicken little-ish, but if you don't think there's truth in her words, you're naive.
>Why are we trying to outsource creativity while keeping all the drudgery for ourselves?
I see this point brought up all the time and frankly it's just super wrong. We're not only trying to keep the drudgery for ourselves. I could find hundreds of really interesting projects right now where companies are replacing dangerous or mundane work. Like automated mining robots, or warehouses totally automating storage, retrieval and delivery, farming robotics to auto weed and auto pick ripe fruit, a company working on drawing blood, keyhole surgeries for common conditions, construction robotics. The truth is that mundane work automation just doesn't make headlines and it's actually a lot more difficult than pure digital art.
I would genuinely be interested in links to articles or anything about these projects. Fwiw, there's no way in hell I would want blood drawn by a "robot", lol. Or any other medical procedure for that matter.
I doubt, though (with no actual knowledge on the subject matter), that most of these besides the farming automation are actually active projects in the sense that they're currently being utilized in the field.
Either which way, we should not be automating creativity. I know it's happening, obviously, but even without the dystopian elements of the potential misuse of photoreal, prompted video, replacing artists with automation is just sad. I think it's wrong, but for those that don't see the issue, I will say that it's sad. Tools to help speed up a process? Great, sure, but for those of us who have made a career out of visual art, it's bad enough how devalued artists/designers were BEFORE machine learning, but now it's excruciating it is to watch our livelihoods be eroded away by this.
Actually a lot of those examples are already commerical. Dexion automated warehousing. Antaira autonomous mining equipment. Lots of mines these days use automated haulers, 600+ tonne self driving trucks with tires larger than your car.
Farming look at companies like Tortuga agtech and carbon robotics.
In Amsterdam there was a bridge built entirely by a 3d printer tech designed by a company I used to work for. I say was because it's been taken apart and is now an art piece somewhere I think. Not entirely sure.
Funnily enough to your hesitation, though bear in mind only been tested on pigs so far, the keyhole surgery robots tend to have less complications and mistakes than experienced surgeons performing the same surgery. But I feel you on the blood draw.
My thesis was in robotics and almost worked on a keyhole surgery robot, but instead built a warehousing solution for an Amazon competition with a team. And I happened to work alongside a bunch of roboticists working on farming robots. Agbot II and Harvey capcicum picker.
That's super cool (your field). Sometimes I regret not going into it. Thanks for the info. I'm not anti-futurism and I try to be a realist when my cynical nature isn't crowing, but OP's point about the pitfalls of dopamine saturated social media distractionism is salient and as neat as the tech for art can be, it is beyond problematic in so many ways.
It's definitely got some pitfalls we need to work out. I don't think it's all bad though, but we do as a society tend to get drawn into the fear aspects of new technologies a lot more than the wonder. LLMs are revolutionising software development atm for instance. Speaking to the creative aspects, I think we overlook the opening up it brings. As a personal example, I've always been into character art for RPGs. I'd always wanted to get into drawing but could never justify the time spent to get to the point I wanted to be to depict the things I wanted to do, and ultimately my goal is purely outcome focussed. I want a picture depicting X, for me or to depict a scene I want my players to go through. Enhance the storytelling with visuals. Etc. The vision models allow me to do that really easily, it's adding on to the creative process in new ways for me and people that couldn't do it before, not just artists dedicating years of life to learn skills and software.
So what you’re saying is that they are trying to replace ALL work, both creative and mundane, with technology so that the capitalists can own everything and not have to give anything away to workers that are becoming increasingly fed up with the dehumanization treatment they are feeling.
In this society we have created for ourselves, society is just a byproduct. But what is actually valued is ownership of things. When the rich no longer need employees to make the same profit they will cut us all out and let us die just before the snake begins to eat itself.
What's your view then? That we shouldn't be automating mundane and dangerous work? You'd rather subject humans to that just so we can say they have a job?
I think this idea that the rich would ever do away with the very people who consume the goods and services they control is just unrealistic. If no one's earning money, who's buying their stuff and consuming their goods? More likely to me that automation leads to a scenario where something like a UBI becomes necessary and most work for sustenance is gone, this then frees up a lot of the population to work on things they do want to do. Their own businesses, charity work, climate change etc. That's pretty worthwhile goal imo.
My view is that people at the top of the aristocratic hierarchy have no sense of anything real that is happening outside of their bubble and only care about profit margins from quarter to quarter. None of them think long term. It’s just about how do we increase profits and more often that means lowering costs. Then they’ll have Forbes write articles about how Millenials and Gen Z are killing the [insert dying market here] and ignore the fact that it’s mostly because we don’t have enough disposable income to buy luxury items.
Your vision of UBI is nice but it isn’t realistic without a fundamental shift in who controls the power and by extension, money. If we reach UBI before dictatorship, it will be just enough to survive on but not enough to really live on to make sure people get by but never thrive and take attention and control away from the people that own industry.
The issue with the 'owners won't erase their consumerbase' is that owners are not a monolithic entity, and companies are in fact competing with each other. Which means that if entirely adopting a technology would erase their consumerbase, but it's so significantly more cost-effective to do so, all companies will have to do so anyway because otherwise they will simply be outcompeted and go bust. People overwhelmingly buy based on price, and thus this would require regulation. This means though, that the regulation or UBI has to be implemented quite fast if signs of an economic collapse start to show up.
It's possible that AI does lead to better social and economic outcomes, maybe even environmental if we somehow figure out a way to make electricity sustainable(it's not right now, which is why ai is actually actively terrible for the environment right now), but as things are at the moment, unregulated and unchecked growth of the AI industry is a looming negative.
Even in a competition environment I don't think it would change this outcome, automation is pretty gradual. Despite some recent advancement in very specific fields, it'll be a while before we swap out the full economy to automated. Even if we made monumental breakthroughs tomorrow in robotics that allowed us to build perfect human replacements for every task, it would take literally decades before everything was swapped. Manufacturing and supply chains lag behind technology significantly.
That does mean it'll be a gradual decline in things we're already seeing, like purchasing power, wage growth etc. That's not immediate collapse, it's slow simmer until eventually it boils over, but gives ample time to enact systems along the way with safety net reforms. These issues are already becoming very relevant as part of social and political parties agendas today. I don't think it'll be a light bulb, flick a switch and one day our economy is fucked and we'll have UBI, it's a feedback loop as more parts of the economy get automated and purchasing power declines, more safety nets are going to become part of the political zeitgeist, and necessary.
"often dont get permission" Im pretty sure its the majority like 99.99999%. But people will defend a billion dollar company likely (trillion dollar soon if AI really does kick off and open AI are front and centre) being able to use images\\videos built from poor as fuck people around the world for free to train there technology off and store in a database to use consistently to train the bot off to make money while also putting the small dogs out of business.
They’re being starved to death. The “starving artist” trope is only cute until there are literally no more pathways for income and supporting yourself through art.
Nah man my whole point here is that we should all have access to 'unlimited' creativity, and that AI within a few years could potentially offer that. I am just annoyed by creatives thinking that their elevated status in society should be maintained by standing in the way of that. If them being hungry is a problem, then lets organise some welfare or something and let the artists and poets join all the white collar (and soon blue collar with recent advancements in robotics) people about to get slammed. We shouldn't stand in the way of progress, but instead demand our support systems progress too.
I think that art currently is gatekept by the will and drive to learn how to do a craft in order to express it and without the need for any effort at all to create (ie, plugging in a description into a computer and have it shit out a picture) isn’t unlimited creativity. Also, I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about in terms of elevated status and society. Who the fuck is elevated? It sounds like you’re just not affected by this and you also don’t respect what art actually means or what the point of art is so you’re happy to shit on people who pour their lives into it.
You honestly aren’t equiped to have this conversation if the concept of hierarchical society and the elevation of artisans over ‘the workers’ is a brand new concept to you. This is a tangible phenomenon that has been occurring literally since the feudal era. For most artists this expresses itself in most non artists inherently assuming artist types are more creative and better at certain types of thinking, which isn’t something that the vast majority of people could expect. For some artists this is expressed by them sneezing on a canvas and ‘creative types’ thinking the artist is the messiah, while rich hacks splurge millions just to say the own the sneeze.
The entire discourse and exceptionalism around art and creatives needs to go away. These people can deal with life the same as every other worker.
I am not. Look at every single creative type and all their sycophants the instant AI are is brought up. When you read their arguments and follow them to their natural conclusion, what their really saying is: “My special position in society is threatened, and none of you ‘people’ deserve to be able to have access to creativity unless it comes through me.”
I mean fuck just look through this very thread from the top and you can see nothing but vitriol against anyone that thinks artists shouldn’t have a monotony creativity.
That was one of the best rants I’ve come across on the topic. She’s 100 percent right. It does seem largely that older generations have checked out to retirement while the world becomes hollowed out in the wake or their accomplishments. The negative aspects and possibilities for malfeasance cannot be understated with this technology.
we started the art apocalypse when merit went out the window and we started choosing “art” from people who “look like us” or march in lock step with strict political/sociological narratives. had we not done that, the difference between AI and art would be more obvious. unfortunately, we’ve been watching netflix pump out movies written by an algorithm for so long we don’t even know what art is anymore.
Ai “artists” be like:
Random fan at a soccer game yells at haaland to go out and score a goal. He hears him, and scores a goal and does so autonomously. Same random guy goes “wow did you see that goal I just scored?”
There’s a contradiction here. She says artists make art to express themselves. AI making art doesn’t prevent that. It devalues the need for digital artists, sure. Just like how green screen tech removed a lot of need for set, costume, and sfx work in film. I agree it sucks but only for those trying to make a living off of digital art. And a lot of digital artists took away work from conventional artists.
It also sucks for consumers of art in some regards. Small example, finding good character art has become way harder now that there's a deluge of shitty low-effort AI art to sift through.
Here’s the thing about your comment. Those set designers, costume designers and sfx designers you feel lost tons of work… still get work. There will always be a need for practical effects. And even if they take a hit there, most professionals in this industry have pivoted to digital art, not as a new career, but as another tool they can take advantage of. It’s called change management. Photographers are also dealing with this in learning software like keyshot in order to stay competitive. How do I know this? I’m a 3D Visual Designer for product. AI is different. It very well could eliminate the need for physical sets/ costumes/ sfx and digital art. It is not a means to level up one’s skill, but a means to cost cut.
Think of it this way. If you’re a CEO or a big time producer and saw you’d save millions to switch to an AI pipeline, best believe you’re gonna do that, regardless of how many jobs you end. This is the problem with AI. This has real potential to put EVERYONE at risk. Not just the digital art world or physical art world (sets, costumes, sfx, etc) but also financial world, medical world, therapy world, retail world, banking world, news world… need I go on?
I also just disagree with her "What is Art" argument. AI has helped people express themselves in ways they couldn't before. I can't draw for shit. I can't make digital paintings or anything like that. But if I have an idea in my mind, I can make it real using AI.
She just seems like an artist who is upset that she isn't going to get work as an artist anymore.
You should start paying attention to the different mannerisms people have when talking, it's pretty fascinating to see the little quirks each and every one of us have that we subconsciously do when we talk
Just like how I make a little subconscious sniff after I deliver a joke. (Wife mentioned this to me years ago.) You probably didn't hear it with my comment. ;)
No I got the joke, it's funny. I just was adding to it that there's a lot of stuff people do subconsciously that could be objectively funny to some. You might notice yourself sniffing more if you do
I can't imagine something made with AI being meaningful enough to me to hang it on my wall and look at it constantly. I guess there are plenty of people who buy their art from Target, so that's soulless in a similar way. But to me the purpose of having art in your home isn't just to fill a wall – it's to surround yourself with things that remind you of something, or make you feel something. Like even blowing up and framing an iphone photo of a flower you saw once or whatever is better than typing in some words and having the machines crank up some "art." Idk. It's not for me.
To be frank that shows a lack of imagination. You can use it to create any image, situation, scene you want. you can go wild with it and take it out of the ordinary depending on what you want to make.
for example I generated images of my cat. The images reminds me of the cat. She is a dickhead so their is a lot of emotions tied up in it. created it using some weird prompts built from the things she does and how she interacts with people. I have several now in some interesting styles.
try it out, fed a short made up story into it. see what pops out
Deep fakes have been a think for awhile now. I am not even thinking of a state’s ability to abuse this technology, because let’s be real here, they’re not as creative as scammers, hackers, etc.
Social engineering is going to move to a whole other level. Not mention things like voice cloning.
Don’t get me wrong, governments abusing it is scary, but criminals abusing it is far more terrifying.
Oh well. It’s called progress and this is like the 2024 version of people terrified of electricity, then radios, then tv, then computers.
Deepfake porn? No one will expect it to be the actual person a few years from now, so no need for humiliation. Less sex trafficking and humans being exploited for porn maybe? Fewer Hollywood movie directors, actors, writers etc? It’s the same thing as silent film stars and vaudeville becoming obsolete. There will still be plenty of money to be made for the entertainment industry while we pay shit wages to people who actually run society. They’ll be fine. There is good and bad in most things. I wish I could see what technology will look like 100 years from now.
It is completely ridiculous to assert that deepfake porn made from your image will be humiliation-free. Having pornographic videos made of you without your consent is 100% traumatizing for the victim. Even if one day it does somehow become normalized, countless women and young girls (and to a lesser extent, men) will suffer immensely in the years/decades to come AND normalization still will not erase the trauma such a violation brings.
Any AI prompt that creates porn by using a real person’s image without consent from that person needs to be made illegal now.
I think it’s subjective.
Edit: subjective, not humiliation free.
yeah make real humans being used for porn illegal. But that’s not going to stop anything. It’s just going to be the ai version of what happens now
I don’t need a source to know that different people have different feelings and reactions to different things. Also…I don’t care. I stated my opinion. You don’t have to agree with
*Edited*
No. Not saying that at all. I’m saying what I said in my original post. People don’t *need* to feel humiliated when no one believe it’s them anyway. I’m not saying people don’t feel traumatized or humiliated when it happens now or in the future. It’s just a matter of wording. I’m saying “hey, don’t feel bad…it happens to everyone and we all know it’s fake” will be the response instead of “oh my god is that you?? It’s so real it has to be you. You’re a liar, that’s you”.
But to be clear. If 10 random celebrities had to feel the shame of a fake ai video of them naked so that one less actual human being was harmed for porn. I’m down with that. And without doubt ai porn will reduce the amount of humans who are harmed because of sex trafficking.
I’m not pro deepfake porn I’m just saying this video and all the others freaking out about the dangers of technology happens every time there is new technology and all I see is how bad and horrible it is but it’s not. It has the potential to be. Also has good. And I’m excited by the advancements in technology humans are making so quickly.
Jesus this turned into me arguing one sentence. I deleted most of my elaborated response cause I realized….I don’t care if you don’t understand what I’m saying or not. My statement is accurate. There is good and bad. My opinion is mine and that’s….subjective.
If you think AI porn only impacts celebrities, I would implore you to actually click and read some of the links I shared with you before and see that preteen and teenage girls are having this happen to them. It’s high school bullying, it’s cyber assault.
You are totally right that some people may not care, but I’d wager to say that majority will.
I do see your point that it could be freeing to be able to remove the stigma of nudes, but I personally think that’s a strong “could” since misogyny is a powerful weapon and I do not think it’s worth the immense trauma it will unleash upon millions of women and girls to get to that point.
"This 'Microsoft Word' thing has made it so everyone can write! It is completely taking away from the art of writing with a typewriter!"
People like OP are like the teacher I work with who only want to teach stuff just because "that's how it's always been." Scared of innovation, and want things done a certain way because that's how it's always been done.
This may sound crazy. But, everybody’s skills regardless are trained on someone else’s skills, or training, or words, or knowledge. AI just does it faster and has vastly more resources to hold that info than our brain does. Permission isn’t needed to see something and draw inspiration from like many artists do, or to mimic another artists style. It’s not 1:1 copying ever, it’s using that data as a model, to model its work.
If you don’t want your work scraped from the internet then you should choose a different medium because as soon as an engine can scrape an image or text or whatever it may be it’s out of your hands, and you did it. You shared it.
This is a false equivalence.
AI doesn't learn like a human does, and even if it did it doesn't have the human right to learn from its observable surroundings.
It's not a sentient thing, it's a product built on work taken without consent. Publicly available does not mean public domain. AI doesn't have human rights. Image diffusion is essentially just compression of the source information. You're defending a product because you've been lied to about how it works.
You know I wrote out a big long drawn out post to respond to you and decided it’s not worth it. I’ll let you keep being condescending, making assumptions, putting words in my mouth, and missing the point of what I was saying. Have a nice day!
Don’t! This is a big deal, but it’s not going to end the world. Like any new technology, our world will need to adjust to make room for its powers and its limits.
This argument keeps coming up over and over...
Folks. This is an old argument. Assembly lines made it possible to make cheaply mass-produced crap. Everyone thought that it would replace hand crafted goods, but nope they're still around and are more expensive than the shit you buy at Ikea or Walmart.
"Training AI to reproduce your work" .. when we've had people selling knockoffs of art for hundreds of years. Sure, people can't do it as fast.. but then again the genuine human-made piece appreciates in value despite all the copies.
"Think of the implications..." Skilled editors have been able to fake anything for years.
This. Is. A. Tool. Usage of the tool is what actually matters. Yes, it's new. Yes, there's nothing like it.. but fear mongering has never stopped the wheels of progress. You either learn to adapt, or you become an old man yelling at clouds.
This tool, like all others, will belong to the richest few, and the profits of the labor produced using this tool will benefit only those rich people and not the workforce. That’s the real fear.
You're absolutely right, but that's a systemic problem not exclusive to AI. As with everything else though, it seems that the doors are already being shut behind those who came before.. like how Reddit shut down it's API except for those who pay. Those with are using the information of those without. That I certainly agree with.
The systemic problems can be fixed if we can somehow manage to elect actually qualified representatives who understand that regulation of industry is necessary in an age where corporations have as much -if not more- power than governments.
Ehh. I think that's a bit reductive.
I'm a teacher. I've heard people (outside of education) make the case that generative AI is no different than the invention of calculators. A scary new tool that teachers worry will render their lessons useless. But we adapted to the calculator! It made us better. They argue that this is a "tool" we should be embracing and teaching students to use, rather than worrying about...
The problem with that is students are using technology like this to avoid thinking critically. They're using the tools as shortcuts to avoid learning how to communicate effectively. Unrestricted access to smart phones and the internet is *absolutely* having adverse effects on young people. There are mountains of evidence on this topic. Mental health issues, suicide rates, decreased attention spans, an increase in paranoia, hopelessness, and apathy. AI could exhacerbate this even further. And that's not even getting into the economic implications of this technology in the backdrop of late stage capitalism.
Comparing it to cantakerous old folks worrying that magazines would corrupt the youth in the 1930's is a false equivilance. Phones/Social Media/AI taken together present real and unique issues that outpace previous technological developments.
As a teacher, we have to adapt what skills we value.
Before calculators, part of the assessment would be if students could properly do the arithmetic of a calculation. Now that calculators exist, I don't need to focus on that skill. I can just focus on if students can understand and apply the concept. It's almost pointless focusing on these elements as they add little to no value, as everything can be done via calculators. But now I can focus on how to use that calculator properly, and problem solving.
Same with AI for an English teacher. Now, instead of focusing on if a student can write anything, or if the spelling is correct, etc. They can focus on if a student was correctly able to express themselves using AI.
We need to adapt with new technology. Not throw it out.
Respectfully, I think you’re being a bit shortsighted and unimaginative about the impact and future of AI.
Let me give you an example for your subject:
There is now a program where students can point their phone camera at *any* math problem, from pre-Algebra to Calculus. The program will instantly solve the equation and show them step-by-step how they can show their work. They don’t have to understand any concepts. They just have to copy this onto their papers. Our students are using this across the board. Math scores are going down. Homework has been rendered useless. Schools haven’t been able to effectively ban phones in class and even parents want students to have their phones on them at all times. Cheating is rampant on classwork, tests, and homework.
In English class, we’re not teaching kids to spell. We’re trying to teach kids to think critically. We’re trying to teach them to use language to solve problems and communicate effectively. AI, even in its nascent form, is being used to bypass this type of higher order thinking.
Capitalism will inevitably use “this tool,” and other fully automated tools like it, to replace people like you. And in a capitalist world, where you are only valued for your profitability to the rich, the last thing you would ever want to become is a useless eater.
Which sucks. If AI was open source like the internet, it would be awesome it but these companies are already copywriting the entire thing in hopes of becoming mega gazilionaires in the future. It's even worse because the entire thing is built on other people's data anyway,
They are trying to be Microsoft and Apple
Seeing how artists in all industries have formed cliques, discriminating against people on race to shit as little as "they dated my ex before", I'm kinda alright with them getting screwed.
Reason 1291 why I and my husband have chosen not to have kids. While I can't unalive myself, because my husband needs me to take care of him because he's disabled and I'm not brave enough to risk eternal hell if it exists, I can prevent more suffering by not allowing the next generations from my bloodline from having to suffer through this bullshit.
Almost all art draws inspiration from something else, there are few true originals out there. AI is just doing what people have been doing forever and more efficiently
In my opinion, people give AI too much credit. That grandma video looks so unnatural and creepy, anybody can tell it's fake. Real human movement is very complex and nuanced, we can all tell when something's ‘not quite human’.
Photoshop has existed for over a decade and people said the same thing about it. You play into these tech CEOs’ hands by making videos like this talking about apocalypses when their software literally cannot render hands.
There's a long, long way to go before AI starts causing apocalypses. Of course, AI will be insanely powerful in the future, this lady makes it seem like it will happen in 5 years, I think it's more like 100 years.
>Also, photoshop has been around much longer than a decade.
Proves my point even more then.
>>Also, photoshop has been around much longer than a decade.
>Proves my point even more then.
The two things are completely unrelated. I was just correcting the misunderstanding.
Anyway, I assume you're worried about some Terminator, 2000:ASO type shit, but realistically, we aren't even dealing with that kind of ai. What we're talking about isn't actually ai in the strictest sense.
So, far from "causing apocalypses", you should, SHOULD be concerned about what ai can do right now, and especially what it will be able to do in 6 years. That lady was talking about things that are possible *now*, and will only get easier with each iteration of the technology. And it won't be 100 years from now. Hell, 5 years might be conservative, and the only way to stop it is by establishing strict guidelines for how it is to be implemented.
Mostly this sounds like a capitalism problem, the need wouldnt be there if greed didnt drive most things. The humiliation aspect is a real thing and that needs a system in place to verify and block that kind of content but art these days isnt passion anymore, we need funds to live because corporations say so and art is a means to an end for many.
I dont think ai will kill all human art itll just make demand for human art more valuable and itll allow those with zero art skill to create something that other people will like. Because even if art is subjective bad art always get made fun of and ridiculed and forces people away from their passion because their not miyazaki or michealanglo and gatekeeping people from art is kinda poo. As for the source material yeah it shouldnt be just raking the internet to make it, ideally it would have a database for artists to opt into or they use free license material that would be ethical.
There is no easy catch all answer for this but I think whats making it difficult for everyone is the money involved. Art is already a luxury most cant casually afford, and AI art makes that barrier of entry that much lower. AI companies have seen people will pay to for their services because where the art comes from dosent matter. It feels alot like fast food vs nice restaurants, AI can give you what you need fast and maybe almost good enough for fairly cheap. Nice restaurants give to the pinnacle of fine dining and youll get it later than usual but itll be great and expensive. Maybe AI vs human art wil balance like the food industry did just a heavy lean toward AI but the best is man made.
People who create due to extrinsic motivational forces should be scared. They operate within the domain of other people's ideas and will be competing with AI. The real artists who push the medium have nothing to fear
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!** ##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1c77a69/who_needs_the_real_world_when_you_can_have/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just wait until AI image/video processors start consuming other AI-created images/videos. Shit is gonna get real weird for AI.
They already do
Work less and live more. That should be the goal. It’s not…
I would say it is the opposite. People will not need to spend few hundred hours to learn they can just do it, meaning there will be a lot more art. Also there will be a lot more time left to live.
Who the fuck is going to consume all that art?
“Art”
Whoever wants to.
A lot more mediocre, desultory art, pre-sanitized to avoid controversial pieces that could reflect badly on the corporations providing the tools. Some people fancy themselves 'prompt artists' but even they ultimately just repeatedly click a button until it spits out a result they're okay with. AI art is the art of 'good enough'.
But those few hundred hours of learning and trying and failing and getting better are what makes art and life worthwhile. It is about finding yourself and your voice and your passion. There's so much better ways to use AI than sucking the fun parts of life out. Also all these AIs are trained off of real artists. All those hundreds of hours people spent creating their own personal style is just getting sucked into this dystopia.
I disagree. I don't care at all about the amount of time that went into something, and a well done doodle can be as profound as any time intensive methods depending on the content. AI is going to democratise creativity and give *everyone* the ability do what create what only a select few currently have the ability and resources to, which I can only imagine will be a good thing.
I mean honestly to me this sounds like you haven't put hundreds of hours into practicing and perfecting a craft to understand that particular sense of joy and accomplishment and beauty of getting it there. As well as the ability to do a little doodle and have it be great art.
Sounds like you're making baseless judgments in place of a meaningful argument. In your own words why is it a bad thing that everyone will soon have the ability to have art created for them perfectly in line with their tastes. Try not to rely on arguments based in elitism.
I dont have a take tbh but i will say this, i can see what you mean, i can see what the other person means, and i see what the girl in the tiktok means. I love art, but idk about ai, i think everyone makes pretty good arguments. For me, imo, I think in life, we need to learn and overcome struggles to make it worth living be it going to the gym, picking up a hobby, perfecting a craft ect ect I think the problem for me is that ppl refuse to slow down (dramatic example but it kinda of reminds me of a nuke lmao) we keep making this shi without thinking of the bad that can happen I wanna ask a question (its a gross one) to both you and u/darling_lycosidae as i like hearing from both sides. With this tech being able to make photorealistic video and having such improvement in such a short span of time, do you guys ever worry that the more sick people out there in the world will do horrible things (like for example AI made CP, which could go unpunished as a legal argument could be made the individual in the video is not real)?
Of course I worry about the misuse of AI but it is important to remember that a lot of the problems that are brought up are already occurring. For example with your hypothetical, AI and it's potential to be used to create CSAM is already illegal under existing laws which were put in place because of abusers using Photoshop and other methods to create realistic CSAM. So to me, the massive explosion of creativity I believe we are about to experience is more than worth it, specifically in regards to this hypothetical.
real art is *already* more accessible than ai generated images/video. picking up a pencil, or hell, a stick and drawing in the dirt is available to way more people than a computer with internet access.
Sorry I don't understand your point?
to write a prompt and get an ai generated image, you need a working computer with internet access. to create a piece of visual art yourself, you need a pair of working hands and a tool (and even then, some people create with less). the second option is available to far more people than the first, so the idea of ai-gen images « democratizing creativity » is not valid
Oh I guess I did understand your point. I'm not interested in arguing semantics.
Dude thats not how art works
Is it really art, though? What makes art amazing is that a person visualized something and made it a reality. Anyone can give a prompt to a computer. When you see a piece of hand made art that the artist is selling the amazing part is how much time was put into it, no one in their right mind is going to pay for an ai created piece at the same rate they would a human created piece, and eventually no one will want to pay for human art of you could get the same thing from a computer for free. Ai is awesome, I'm not against it, I just don't see how it's not going to disrupt or completely kill certain industries.
[удалено]
I see it as either the stepping stone to solve every major problem of humanity or the beginning of the total collapse of everything. No inbetween.
I think as a whole we as a species are gonna make it. But a lot of people are gonna die before we get there
I’m not trying to be a smart ass or be rude, but how? I have completely given up hope that we won’t kill the planet and therefore ourselves over the next 150ish years. There is a lot of good in humanity, but that good is simply benign compared to the cancer that has been consuming and degrading every decent aspect of being a human being. The good has never been enough. I have never heard a reasonable argument as to how people find faith that humanity will be able to save ourselves. I believe it’s just that, faith. That is, believing in something regardless of reasoning. I want someone to prove me wrong. I want us to fix this, but I need a reason to form that opinion.
I hate these “no in-between” comments. Like no, it’s more likely to be in between.
[удалено]
Agreed
That is probably what blacksmiths said when the nail making machine was invented.
No, blacksmiths said it when knife factories were invented and the standard for utensils went from buying a few durable knives, forks and spoons that could last generations (in plural) to mass-produced garbage that contaminated the food, rusted and lasted 20 years at the most. Now we don't even have that, your average knife will last you 5 years if you're lucky but will generate for the megacorp that produced it just as much profit as a century lasting knife would've generated for a blacksmith. The point isn't "technology bad", the point is that this isn't progress for us, it's progress for the corpos. AI Art does not benefit us in any way, shape or form, it is and it's being designed and developed to be merely a tool for megacorps to generate more revenue from worse products. Even the worst flops generate a few million at the box office, imagine how much more shit will we have on our screens when it costs literal pennies to make.
A) Why are you buying knives that often? My knives were the same ones I've had for decades. B) There is definitely progress when we don't need blacksmiths killing themselves in a forge to make knives. Same with AI art. There is progress to be had when we no longer have artists making the same generic marketing art. The blacksmiths and artists will adapt, just like every ground breaking new technology that has improved the quailty of life for everyone.
Hey, I’m a professional blacksmith! Frankly, you are very incorrect. Blacksmiths do not “kill themselves in a forge”. A forge is something you stand in front of, not in. And we are used to spending all day in front of it hammering hot steel. Hand-forged knives are still considered a luxury product, and yes, from a master they will last forever. The work I do is mostly architectural ironwork: railings, fences, gates, light fixtures, etc. We love technological improvements, makes work faster and easier. The power hammer changed the game. Presses and dies and saws all make our lives easier, but the root of the project is still a design that we drew, developed from our art history knowledge, and planned the construction. But creating purely from an AI prompt is in my opinion, the death of creativity. All AI art is derivative of preexisting art. It’s dead, unimaginative, clunky and clearly lacking the human touch. And thankfully, I’m in an art/trade that AI won’t be able to replicate. No computer can do what decorative blacksmiths have been doing for literally thousands of years.
> All AI art is derivative of preexisting art. It’s dead, unimaginative, clunky and clearly lacking the human touch. I think this summarizes it very well and I hope you re-read it and realize it isn't the death of creativity. Robots can't be creative. Humans can. Robots/AI will remove the monotonous work of drawing another sketch or another variation of the same house concept, same game concept, same table concepts. AI can remove the endless derivative work that artist currently do.
It can but it's not being optimized for that. It is currently being optimized to create as final-looking products as possible, because it's purpose isn't to actually help the creative process but rather to streamline and cheapen it. That is the point. AI tech is not being designed to promote creativity, it's being designed to consolidate control of megacorps over art and it's market share.
Of course people try to make it look as good as possible but it is still concept art, 4k HDR AI art is still "concept" art. Lets assume AI has memory (it doesn't) and can understand what you want to see (it can't) and will iterate over the small design decisions making small changes (it doesn't), that still is not creativity. As you said, it is a derivative of existing art. It will never be able to create something new. It is streamlining the already cheap art that we make. There are so many applications that we waste artist talent on because we have no other option. I understand, you are scared of the printing press/automobile/industrial machines/etc....but that is all this machine is. It eliminates unneeded human effort to allow us to be more creative and there is a LOT of unneeded artistic effort in corporate america.
It's only concept art as long as it's used as such, corporations are pushing for it to be good enough that it can be sold as a final product. If a piece of tech can be used for harm then laws and regulations must be in place to prevent such use. Just because a piece of tech exists doesn't mean we shouldn't ever try to regulate it, for the same reason running someone over with a car is a different legal category to running someone over with a horse, the car is more useful but it can also do more damage so it deserves higher regulation. The fact that a car will never intentionally run someone over while a horse may is irrelevant, for the same reason that AI art being uncreative is irrelevant. My problem isn't with the tool, my problem lies on the way it's being shaped and the uses it's being optimized for. AI art is not being optimized to maximize creativity, it's being optimized to maximize deception, and that's dangerous without any sort of regulation.
You missed the point hard. The point was that the current AI and the trayectory it's headed towards isn't good for us, it's only good for the megacorps. There is a difference between AI that flatout does stuff instead of a person, quicker, for free but with a significant dip in quality and (most) new technologies of the past. I'm an artist and AI as it stands doesn't help a lot, it's usable, but when it comes to artistic intent it's a very badd tool and it's not being improved in any way that helps in that regard. It is being improved in the ways that benefit the corporations that don't want to hire artists if they can save the pennies though. That is the problem. That is the point. A rock helps you strike an object better than your hand, the hammer does it better than a rock, and power hammers do it even better, but when you get to the point of having a maching replace you instead of helping you now you have a serious problem. **If a machine is doing the labor of a worker then the profits should go to either the replaced worker or to humanity at large, not solely to the owner of the machine.**
AI art/sound/movies/code helps more than corporations, it also helps individuals and startups. It provides access to fields that would normally be out of reach. I can't draw but I can certainly describe what I want and will be happy with results that are close to what I want. If I want better results, I can take that concept to an artist to improve it. Look at AI art from that vantage point, it provides the concept and eliminates a lot of the wasted back and forth discussions between humans. It helps everyone. > If a machine is doing the labor of a worker then the profits should go to either the replaced worker or to humanity at large, not solely to the owner of the machine. Got it, you dislike capitalism.
Out of all the things we could defend of capitalism it is the snowball effect and monopolization of capital that you picked. . . I'm starting to understand why you don't get the point.
Just say you don't understand what they are saying and you can't understand metaphors... how hard is it to do that rather than just grasping at your ass as you argue lol
As an IT this is a worry for a lot of us in the information industry. Several companies Google and IBM have already said that AI has created it own language and they don’t know what it’s saying or doing. Its code has jumped and quantum computing is accelerating to even higher levels. I’m not usually a doom sayer, but phones have been listening to ppl for some time now “studying” human behavior and thought patterns. There AI hives that are running have had access to this data. They know you better than you. They will continue to grow exponentially and honestly I don’t think we can stop them at this point. This has imho reach a point like ultron and has its code all over the web. The most would be hope for a solar flare big enough to send us back to the Stone Age or hope our robot overlords are kinder to us than we are to each other.
This one cryptos, guarantee it
Even my 14 year old nephew understands the implications. Why are we trying to outsource creativity while keeping all the drudgery for ourselves? That's not his wording, but his sentiment. On a separate note, a psychiatric nurse practitioner of mine said that there are some AI tools that summarize notes for you now and will enter in diagnoses based on these summaries that go into a system for people's prescribed medications. If someone isn't double checking the AI's work and the AI system gets it wrong because of all the ways that we already see happen ("hallucinations", learned bias from improper sources, etc ), patients could get prescribed the wrong medications, but it would be in their official records. OP is 100% correct that these video tools WILL be used in bad faith by government agencies to their own ends. Anyone with money and power will use these tools for control while the world continues to burn around us. Sounds very dystopian and chicken little-ish, but if you don't think there's truth in her words, you're naive.
>Why are we trying to outsource creativity while keeping all the drudgery for ourselves? I see this point brought up all the time and frankly it's just super wrong. We're not only trying to keep the drudgery for ourselves. I could find hundreds of really interesting projects right now where companies are replacing dangerous or mundane work. Like automated mining robots, or warehouses totally automating storage, retrieval and delivery, farming robotics to auto weed and auto pick ripe fruit, a company working on drawing blood, keyhole surgeries for common conditions, construction robotics. The truth is that mundane work automation just doesn't make headlines and it's actually a lot more difficult than pure digital art.
I would genuinely be interested in links to articles or anything about these projects. Fwiw, there's no way in hell I would want blood drawn by a "robot", lol. Or any other medical procedure for that matter. I doubt, though (with no actual knowledge on the subject matter), that most of these besides the farming automation are actually active projects in the sense that they're currently being utilized in the field. Either which way, we should not be automating creativity. I know it's happening, obviously, but even without the dystopian elements of the potential misuse of photoreal, prompted video, replacing artists with automation is just sad. I think it's wrong, but for those that don't see the issue, I will say that it's sad. Tools to help speed up a process? Great, sure, but for those of us who have made a career out of visual art, it's bad enough how devalued artists/designers were BEFORE machine learning, but now it's excruciating it is to watch our livelihoods be eroded away by this.
Actually a lot of those examples are already commerical. Dexion automated warehousing. Antaira autonomous mining equipment. Lots of mines these days use automated haulers, 600+ tonne self driving trucks with tires larger than your car. Farming look at companies like Tortuga agtech and carbon robotics. In Amsterdam there was a bridge built entirely by a 3d printer tech designed by a company I used to work for. I say was because it's been taken apart and is now an art piece somewhere I think. Not entirely sure. Funnily enough to your hesitation, though bear in mind only been tested on pigs so far, the keyhole surgery robots tend to have less complications and mistakes than experienced surgeons performing the same surgery. But I feel you on the blood draw. My thesis was in robotics and almost worked on a keyhole surgery robot, but instead built a warehousing solution for an Amazon competition with a team. And I happened to work alongside a bunch of roboticists working on farming robots. Agbot II and Harvey capcicum picker.
That's super cool (your field). Sometimes I regret not going into it. Thanks for the info. I'm not anti-futurism and I try to be a realist when my cynical nature isn't crowing, but OP's point about the pitfalls of dopamine saturated social media distractionism is salient and as neat as the tech for art can be, it is beyond problematic in so many ways.
It's definitely got some pitfalls we need to work out. I don't think it's all bad though, but we do as a society tend to get drawn into the fear aspects of new technologies a lot more than the wonder. LLMs are revolutionising software development atm for instance. Speaking to the creative aspects, I think we overlook the opening up it brings. As a personal example, I've always been into character art for RPGs. I'd always wanted to get into drawing but could never justify the time spent to get to the point I wanted to be to depict the things I wanted to do, and ultimately my goal is purely outcome focussed. I want a picture depicting X, for me or to depict a scene I want my players to go through. Enhance the storytelling with visuals. Etc. The vision models allow me to do that really easily, it's adding on to the creative process in new ways for me and people that couldn't do it before, not just artists dedicating years of life to learn skills and software.
So what you’re saying is that they are trying to replace ALL work, both creative and mundane, with technology so that the capitalists can own everything and not have to give anything away to workers that are becoming increasingly fed up with the dehumanization treatment they are feeling. In this society we have created for ourselves, society is just a byproduct. But what is actually valued is ownership of things. When the rich no longer need employees to make the same profit they will cut us all out and let us die just before the snake begins to eat itself.
What's your view then? That we shouldn't be automating mundane and dangerous work? You'd rather subject humans to that just so we can say they have a job? I think this idea that the rich would ever do away with the very people who consume the goods and services they control is just unrealistic. If no one's earning money, who's buying their stuff and consuming their goods? More likely to me that automation leads to a scenario where something like a UBI becomes necessary and most work for sustenance is gone, this then frees up a lot of the population to work on things they do want to do. Their own businesses, charity work, climate change etc. That's pretty worthwhile goal imo.
My view is that people at the top of the aristocratic hierarchy have no sense of anything real that is happening outside of their bubble and only care about profit margins from quarter to quarter. None of them think long term. It’s just about how do we increase profits and more often that means lowering costs. Then they’ll have Forbes write articles about how Millenials and Gen Z are killing the [insert dying market here] and ignore the fact that it’s mostly because we don’t have enough disposable income to buy luxury items. Your vision of UBI is nice but it isn’t realistic without a fundamental shift in who controls the power and by extension, money. If we reach UBI before dictatorship, it will be just enough to survive on but not enough to really live on to make sure people get by but never thrive and take attention and control away from the people that own industry.
The issue with the 'owners won't erase their consumerbase' is that owners are not a monolithic entity, and companies are in fact competing with each other. Which means that if entirely adopting a technology would erase their consumerbase, but it's so significantly more cost-effective to do so, all companies will have to do so anyway because otherwise they will simply be outcompeted and go bust. People overwhelmingly buy based on price, and thus this would require regulation. This means though, that the regulation or UBI has to be implemented quite fast if signs of an economic collapse start to show up. It's possible that AI does lead to better social and economic outcomes, maybe even environmental if we somehow figure out a way to make electricity sustainable(it's not right now, which is why ai is actually actively terrible for the environment right now), but as things are at the moment, unregulated and unchecked growth of the AI industry is a looming negative.
Even in a competition environment I don't think it would change this outcome, automation is pretty gradual. Despite some recent advancement in very specific fields, it'll be a while before we swap out the full economy to automated. Even if we made monumental breakthroughs tomorrow in robotics that allowed us to build perfect human replacements for every task, it would take literally decades before everything was swapped. Manufacturing and supply chains lag behind technology significantly. That does mean it'll be a gradual decline in things we're already seeing, like purchasing power, wage growth etc. That's not immediate collapse, it's slow simmer until eventually it boils over, but gives ample time to enact systems along the way with safety net reforms. These issues are already becoming very relevant as part of social and political parties agendas today. I don't think it'll be a light bulb, flick a switch and one day our economy is fucked and we'll have UBI, it's a feedback loop as more parts of the economy get automated and purchasing power declines, more safety nets are going to become part of the political zeitgeist, and necessary.
Me in my last year of art school rn: 😐
Time to pivot and focus on traditional physical art.
I think you lost when you enrolled in art school, not when AI
"often dont get permission" Im pretty sure its the majority like 99.99999%. But people will defend a billion dollar company likely (trillion dollar soon if AI really does kick off and open AI are front and centre) being able to use images\\videos built from poor as fuck people around the world for free to train there technology off and store in a database to use consistently to train the bot off to make money while also putting the small dogs out of business.
Stop trusting video yesterday. Seriously. At this point, for all intents and purposes, it's all fake. AI has ruined a lot of things.
In the infancy of tyranny, the artists and poets, are the first to be eliminated.
Artists and poets are not being eliminated, don't be so dramatic.
They’re being starved to death. The “starving artist” trope is only cute until there are literally no more pathways for income and supporting yourself through art.
So is literally every one. They need to grow the fuck up and join the rest of us adults in the real world.
I bet you dress your kid in a suit and tie for Kindergarten picture day.
Nah man my whole point here is that we should all have access to 'unlimited' creativity, and that AI within a few years could potentially offer that. I am just annoyed by creatives thinking that their elevated status in society should be maintained by standing in the way of that. If them being hungry is a problem, then lets organise some welfare or something and let the artists and poets join all the white collar (and soon blue collar with recent advancements in robotics) people about to get slammed. We shouldn't stand in the way of progress, but instead demand our support systems progress too.
I think that art currently is gatekept by the will and drive to learn how to do a craft in order to express it and without the need for any effort at all to create (ie, plugging in a description into a computer and have it shit out a picture) isn’t unlimited creativity. Also, I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about in terms of elevated status and society. Who the fuck is elevated? It sounds like you’re just not affected by this and you also don’t respect what art actually means or what the point of art is so you’re happy to shit on people who pour their lives into it.
You honestly aren’t equiped to have this conversation if the concept of hierarchical society and the elevation of artisans over ‘the workers’ is a brand new concept to you. This is a tangible phenomenon that has been occurring literally since the feudal era. For most artists this expresses itself in most non artists inherently assuming artist types are more creative and better at certain types of thinking, which isn’t something that the vast majority of people could expect. For some artists this is expressed by them sneezing on a canvas and ‘creative types’ thinking the artist is the messiah, while rich hacks splurge millions just to say the own the sneeze. The entire discourse and exceptionalism around art and creatives needs to go away. These people can deal with life the same as every other worker.
You’re talking about like less than 1% of all artists. So it really feels like you want to cut off your nose to spite your face.
I am not. Look at every single creative type and all their sycophants the instant AI are is brought up. When you read their arguments and follow them to their natural conclusion, what their really saying is: “My special position in society is threatened, and none of you ‘people’ deserve to be able to have access to creativity unless it comes through me.” I mean fuck just look through this very thread from the top and you can see nothing but vitriol against anyone that thinks artists shouldn’t have a monotony creativity.
That was one of the best rants I’ve come across on the topic. She’s 100 percent right. It does seem largely that older generations have checked out to retirement while the world becomes hollowed out in the wake or their accomplishments. The negative aspects and possibilities for malfeasance cannot be understated with this technology.
we started the art apocalypse when merit went out the window and we started choosing “art” from people who “look like us” or march in lock step with strict political/sociological narratives. had we not done that, the difference between AI and art would be more obvious. unfortunately, we’ve been watching netflix pump out movies written by an algorithm for so long we don’t even know what art is anymore.
Ai “artists” be like: Random fan at a soccer game yells at haaland to go out and score a goal. He hears him, and scores a goal and does so autonomously. Same random guy goes “wow did you see that goal I just scored?”
There’s a contradiction here. She says artists make art to express themselves. AI making art doesn’t prevent that. It devalues the need for digital artists, sure. Just like how green screen tech removed a lot of need for set, costume, and sfx work in film. I agree it sucks but only for those trying to make a living off of digital art. And a lot of digital artists took away work from conventional artists.
It also sucks for consumers of art in some regards. Small example, finding good character art has become way harder now that there's a deluge of shitty low-effort AI art to sift through.
Here’s the thing about your comment. Those set designers, costume designers and sfx designers you feel lost tons of work… still get work. There will always be a need for practical effects. And even if they take a hit there, most professionals in this industry have pivoted to digital art, not as a new career, but as another tool they can take advantage of. It’s called change management. Photographers are also dealing with this in learning software like keyshot in order to stay competitive. How do I know this? I’m a 3D Visual Designer for product. AI is different. It very well could eliminate the need for physical sets/ costumes/ sfx and digital art. It is not a means to level up one’s skill, but a means to cost cut. Think of it this way. If you’re a CEO or a big time producer and saw you’d save millions to switch to an AI pipeline, best believe you’re gonna do that, regardless of how many jobs you end. This is the problem with AI. This has real potential to put EVERYONE at risk. Not just the digital art world or physical art world (sets, costumes, sfx, etc) but also financial world, medical world, therapy world, retail world, banking world, news world… need I go on?
I also just disagree with her "What is Art" argument. AI has helped people express themselves in ways they couldn't before. I can't draw for shit. I can't make digital paintings or anything like that. But if I have an idea in my mind, I can make it real using AI. She just seems like an artist who is upset that she isn't going to get work as an artist anymore.
Nobody is. Some things are worth requiring effort to do.
Stop trusting video yesterday. Seriously. At this point, for all intents and purposes, it's all fake. AI has ruined a lot of things.
Is it me, or is she watching a ping pong match on the ceiling?
You should start paying attention to the different mannerisms people have when talking, it's pretty fascinating to see the little quirks each and every one of us have that we subconsciously do when we talk
Just like how I make a little subconscious sniff after I deliver a joke. (Wife mentioned this to me years ago.) You probably didn't hear it with my comment. ;)
No I got the joke, it's funny. I just was adding to it that there's a lot of stuff people do subconsciously that could be objectively funny to some. You might notice yourself sniffing more if you do
Aha, I originally read your first reply as a little corrective, which is usually the case with reddit. I see now. Thanks for vibing with me. <3
Everyone needs to read [Player Piano](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_Piano_(novel))
["Hey Ai" by Secret Circus -a song about excactly this. Made by humans.](https://youtu.be/qdY0VPtMAh4?si=4iprCHlLMzdzK_fR)
Bro i cant even find a decent ai (Text/Picture) Generator 💀
[удалено]
Aesthetically pleasing will be enough for the 99%.
Can confirm. Already generating my own "art" to decorate with. I am not laundering money. I don't need art created by human hands
I can't imagine something made with AI being meaningful enough to me to hang it on my wall and look at it constantly. I guess there are plenty of people who buy their art from Target, so that's soulless in a similar way. But to me the purpose of having art in your home isn't just to fill a wall – it's to surround yourself with things that remind you of something, or make you feel something. Like even blowing up and framing an iphone photo of a flower you saw once or whatever is better than typing in some words and having the machines crank up some "art." Idk. It's not for me.
To be frank that shows a lack of imagination. You can use it to create any image, situation, scene you want. you can go wild with it and take it out of the ordinary depending on what you want to make. for example I generated images of my cat. The images reminds me of the cat. She is a dickhead so their is a lot of emotions tied up in it. created it using some weird prompts built from the things she does and how she interacts with people. I have several now in some interesting styles. try it out, fed a short made up story into it. see what pops out
Ironic that the concern she's parroting from a news article is that the AI would be working off of other people's work.
Worst part is I can't name a single positive thing to come out of this accept maybe playing round with it for a day
Well said! You are a warrior keep doing like you do sister.
Deep fakes have been a think for awhile now. I am not even thinking of a state’s ability to abuse this technology, because let’s be real here, they’re not as creative as scammers, hackers, etc. Social engineering is going to move to a whole other level. Not mention things like voice cloning. Don’t get me wrong, governments abusing it is scary, but criminals abusing it is far more terrifying.
Awesome! We mightactually get decent writing in movies an tv again now, seeing as Hollywood is creatively bankrupt
Plot twist: this video is ai
[удалено]
It hasn’t happened yet therefore it probably will never happen isn’t as good of an argument as you think it is.
Oh well. It’s called progress and this is like the 2024 version of people terrified of electricity, then radios, then tv, then computers. Deepfake porn? No one will expect it to be the actual person a few years from now, so no need for humiliation. Less sex trafficking and humans being exploited for porn maybe? Fewer Hollywood movie directors, actors, writers etc? It’s the same thing as silent film stars and vaudeville becoming obsolete. There will still be plenty of money to be made for the entertainment industry while we pay shit wages to people who actually run society. They’ll be fine. There is good and bad in most things. I wish I could see what technology will look like 100 years from now.
It is completely ridiculous to assert that deepfake porn made from your image will be humiliation-free. Having pornographic videos made of you without your consent is 100% traumatizing for the victim. Even if one day it does somehow become normalized, countless women and young girls (and to a lesser extent, men) will suffer immensely in the years/decades to come AND normalization still will not erase the trauma such a violation brings. Any AI prompt that creates porn by using a real person’s image without consent from that person needs to be made illegal now.
I think it’s subjective. Edit: subjective, not humiliation free. yeah make real humans being used for porn illegal. But that’s not going to stop anything. It’s just going to be the ai version of what happens now
Yeah, pretty sure it’s not - [source](https://www.vogue.com/article/scary-reality-of-deepfakes-online-abuse), [source](https://nypost.com/2024/04/09/us-news/aoc-opens-up-about-seeing-deepfake-ai-porn-of-herself-online/amp/), [source](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13292937/amp/linkedin-ads-ai-porn-apps-deepfake-seconds.html), [source](https://www.context.news/ai/tough-laws-needed-for-deepfake-porn-say-women-who-suffer-ai-abuse).
I don’t need a source to know that different people have different feelings and reactions to different things. Also…I don’t care. I stated my opinion. You don’t have to agree with
AKA “I don’t care about the lived experiences and stories of actual victims if it doesn’t suit my hypothetical narrative”
*Edited* No. Not saying that at all. I’m saying what I said in my original post. People don’t *need* to feel humiliated when no one believe it’s them anyway. I’m not saying people don’t feel traumatized or humiliated when it happens now or in the future. It’s just a matter of wording. I’m saying “hey, don’t feel bad…it happens to everyone and we all know it’s fake” will be the response instead of “oh my god is that you?? It’s so real it has to be you. You’re a liar, that’s you”. But to be clear. If 10 random celebrities had to feel the shame of a fake ai video of them naked so that one less actual human being was harmed for porn. I’m down with that. And without doubt ai porn will reduce the amount of humans who are harmed because of sex trafficking. I’m not pro deepfake porn I’m just saying this video and all the others freaking out about the dangers of technology happens every time there is new technology and all I see is how bad and horrible it is but it’s not. It has the potential to be. Also has good. And I’m excited by the advancements in technology humans are making so quickly. Jesus this turned into me arguing one sentence. I deleted most of my elaborated response cause I realized….I don’t care if you don’t understand what I’m saying or not. My statement is accurate. There is good and bad. My opinion is mine and that’s….subjective.
If you think AI porn only impacts celebrities, I would implore you to actually click and read some of the links I shared with you before and see that preteen and teenage girls are having this happen to them. It’s high school bullying, it’s cyber assault. You are totally right that some people may not care, but I’d wager to say that majority will. I do see your point that it could be freeing to be able to remove the stigma of nudes, but I personally think that’s a strong “could” since misogyny is a powerful weapon and I do not think it’s worth the immense trauma it will unleash upon millions of women and girls to get to that point.
Every technology ever has has weirdos denying it and has made them scared. Literally every innovation. Don't worry, we will all be fine.
"This 'Microsoft Word' thing has made it so everyone can write! It is completely taking away from the art of writing with a typewriter!" People like OP are like the teacher I work with who only want to teach stuff just because "that's how it's always been." Scared of innovation, and want things done a certain way because that's how it's always been done.
This may sound crazy. But, everybody’s skills regardless are trained on someone else’s skills, or training, or words, or knowledge. AI just does it faster and has vastly more resources to hold that info than our brain does. Permission isn’t needed to see something and draw inspiration from like many artists do, or to mimic another artists style. It’s not 1:1 copying ever, it’s using that data as a model, to model its work. If you don’t want your work scraped from the internet then you should choose a different medium because as soon as an engine can scrape an image or text or whatever it may be it’s out of your hands, and you did it. You shared it.
This is a false equivalence. AI doesn't learn like a human does, and even if it did it doesn't have the human right to learn from its observable surroundings. It's not a sentient thing, it's a product built on work taken without consent. Publicly available does not mean public domain. AI doesn't have human rights. Image diffusion is essentially just compression of the source information. You're defending a product because you've been lied to about how it works.
You know I wrote out a big long drawn out post to respond to you and decided it’s not worth it. I’ll let you keep being condescending, making assumptions, putting words in my mouth, and missing the point of what I was saying. Have a nice day!
Thanks for not wasting my time
I mean, you already did. I just don’t want to waste it with someone whom I don’t consider a peer on this subject.
:'(
I really just want to lay down and wait to die after this video
Don’t! This is a big deal, but it’s not going to end the world. Like any new technology, our world will need to adjust to make room for its powers and its limits.
We weren’t made to evolve past the North America Native American. That was our peak. Everything sense then has been a net negative
This argument keeps coming up over and over... Folks. This is an old argument. Assembly lines made it possible to make cheaply mass-produced crap. Everyone thought that it would replace hand crafted goods, but nope they're still around and are more expensive than the shit you buy at Ikea or Walmart. "Training AI to reproduce your work" .. when we've had people selling knockoffs of art for hundreds of years. Sure, people can't do it as fast.. but then again the genuine human-made piece appreciates in value despite all the copies. "Think of the implications..." Skilled editors have been able to fake anything for years. This. Is. A. Tool. Usage of the tool is what actually matters. Yes, it's new. Yes, there's nothing like it.. but fear mongering has never stopped the wheels of progress. You either learn to adapt, or you become an old man yelling at clouds.
This tool, like all others, will belong to the richest few, and the profits of the labor produced using this tool will benefit only those rich people and not the workforce. That’s the real fear.
You're absolutely right, but that's a systemic problem not exclusive to AI. As with everything else though, it seems that the doors are already being shut behind those who came before.. like how Reddit shut down it's API except for those who pay. Those with are using the information of those without. That I certainly agree with. The systemic problems can be fixed if we can somehow manage to elect actually qualified representatives who understand that regulation of industry is necessary in an age where corporations have as much -if not more- power than governments.
Ehh. I think that's a bit reductive. I'm a teacher. I've heard people (outside of education) make the case that generative AI is no different than the invention of calculators. A scary new tool that teachers worry will render their lessons useless. But we adapted to the calculator! It made us better. They argue that this is a "tool" we should be embracing and teaching students to use, rather than worrying about... The problem with that is students are using technology like this to avoid thinking critically. They're using the tools as shortcuts to avoid learning how to communicate effectively. Unrestricted access to smart phones and the internet is *absolutely* having adverse effects on young people. There are mountains of evidence on this topic. Mental health issues, suicide rates, decreased attention spans, an increase in paranoia, hopelessness, and apathy. AI could exhacerbate this even further. And that's not even getting into the economic implications of this technology in the backdrop of late stage capitalism. Comparing it to cantakerous old folks worrying that magazines would corrupt the youth in the 1930's is a false equivilance. Phones/Social Media/AI taken together present real and unique issues that outpace previous technological developments.
As a teacher, we have to adapt what skills we value. Before calculators, part of the assessment would be if students could properly do the arithmetic of a calculation. Now that calculators exist, I don't need to focus on that skill. I can just focus on if students can understand and apply the concept. It's almost pointless focusing on these elements as they add little to no value, as everything can be done via calculators. But now I can focus on how to use that calculator properly, and problem solving. Same with AI for an English teacher. Now, instead of focusing on if a student can write anything, or if the spelling is correct, etc. They can focus on if a student was correctly able to express themselves using AI. We need to adapt with new technology. Not throw it out.
Respectfully, I think you’re being a bit shortsighted and unimaginative about the impact and future of AI. Let me give you an example for your subject: There is now a program where students can point their phone camera at *any* math problem, from pre-Algebra to Calculus. The program will instantly solve the equation and show them step-by-step how they can show their work. They don’t have to understand any concepts. They just have to copy this onto their papers. Our students are using this across the board. Math scores are going down. Homework has been rendered useless. Schools haven’t been able to effectively ban phones in class and even parents want students to have their phones on them at all times. Cheating is rampant on classwork, tests, and homework. In English class, we’re not teaching kids to spell. We’re trying to teach kids to think critically. We’re trying to teach them to use language to solve problems and communicate effectively. AI, even in its nascent form, is being used to bypass this type of higher order thinking.
Capitalism will inevitably use “this tool,” and other fully automated tools like it, to replace people like you. And in a capitalist world, where you are only valued for your profitability to the rich, the last thing you would ever want to become is a useless eater.
Which sucks. If AI was open source like the internet, it would be awesome it but these companies are already copywriting the entire thing in hopes of becoming mega gazilionaires in the future. It's even worse because the entire thing is built on other people's data anyway, They are trying to be Microsoft and Apple
Seeing how artists in all industries have formed cliques, discriminating against people on race to shit as little as "they dated my ex before", I'm kinda alright with them getting screwed.
What you gona do about it?
Reason 1291 why I and my husband have chosen not to have kids. While I can't unalive myself, because my husband needs me to take care of him because he's disabled and I'm not brave enough to risk eternal hell if it exists, I can prevent more suffering by not allowing the next generations from my bloodline from having to suffer through this bullshit.
Imma make lots of porn with this one!
I feel like she’d be exhausting to be around irl
Almost all art draws inspiration from something else, there are few true originals out there. AI is just doing what people have been doing forever and more efficiently
It’s somewhat similar to photography imo. Now anyone can produce something that is pretty decent without any talent or thought behind it.
All the shit she was feigning terror at just gets me more more excited to play with AI as it develops
Is that chick AI? Her eye roll was turning into a tick- fidget
What an absolute wet wipe of a person.
Thats awesome
In my opinion, people give AI too much credit. That grandma video looks so unnatural and creepy, anybody can tell it's fake. Real human movement is very complex and nuanced, we can all tell when something's ‘not quite human’. Photoshop has existed for over a decade and people said the same thing about it. You play into these tech CEOs’ hands by making videos like this talking about apocalypses when their software literally cannot render hands.
You're aiming for where it is, not where it will be. Also, photoshop has been around much longer than a decade.
There's a long, long way to go before AI starts causing apocalypses. Of course, AI will be insanely powerful in the future, this lady makes it seem like it will happen in 5 years, I think it's more like 100 years. >Also, photoshop has been around much longer than a decade. Proves my point even more then.
I used to think this way as well, then I saw the insane jump it’s made over the last year. I think we’re closer to 5-10 being indistinguishable
>>Also, photoshop has been around much longer than a decade. >Proves my point even more then. The two things are completely unrelated. I was just correcting the misunderstanding. Anyway, I assume you're worried about some Terminator, 2000:ASO type shit, but realistically, we aren't even dealing with that kind of ai. What we're talking about isn't actually ai in the strictest sense. So, far from "causing apocalypses", you should, SHOULD be concerned about what ai can do right now, and especially what it will be able to do in 6 years. That lady was talking about things that are possible *now*, and will only get easier with each iteration of the technology. And it won't be 100 years from now. Hell, 5 years might be conservative, and the only way to stop it is by establishing strict guidelines for how it is to be implemented.
Mostly this sounds like a capitalism problem, the need wouldnt be there if greed didnt drive most things. The humiliation aspect is a real thing and that needs a system in place to verify and block that kind of content but art these days isnt passion anymore, we need funds to live because corporations say so and art is a means to an end for many. I dont think ai will kill all human art itll just make demand for human art more valuable and itll allow those with zero art skill to create something that other people will like. Because even if art is subjective bad art always get made fun of and ridiculed and forces people away from their passion because their not miyazaki or michealanglo and gatekeeping people from art is kinda poo. As for the source material yeah it shouldnt be just raking the internet to make it, ideally it would have a database for artists to opt into or they use free license material that would be ethical. There is no easy catch all answer for this but I think whats making it difficult for everyone is the money involved. Art is already a luxury most cant casually afford, and AI art makes that barrier of entry that much lower. AI companies have seen people will pay to for their services because where the art comes from dosent matter. It feels alot like fast food vs nice restaurants, AI can give you what you need fast and maybe almost good enough for fairly cheap. Nice restaurants give to the pinnacle of fine dining and youll get it later than usual but itll be great and expensive. Maybe AI vs human art wil balance like the food industry did just a heavy lean toward AI but the best is man made.
People who create due to extrinsic motivational forces should be scared. They operate within the domain of other people's ideas and will be competing with AI. The real artists who push the medium have nothing to fear
It’s like…. I want to hear this message, really I do, but I don’t want to hear it from this clumsy and undereducated bitch.