this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2024

229 points (97.9% liked)

Memes

45132 readers

3258 users here now

Rules:

Be civil and nice.
Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

229

The Future of AI (lemmy.ml)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 37 points 6 months ago (1 children)

And the problem is that since these dickwads want to close source their neural networks, we wasting billions of watts training on similar data sets repeatedly generating models with minor differences over and over again. If there was a truly awesome open source model, then we could train on top of it and create more complex and complex models targeted at the good of humankind. But no, stakeholders must get profits. When will they understand that the entire humanity is a stakeholder in this planet.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Good news is that open source approach appears to be advancing faster than closed models https://steve-yegge.medium.com/were-gonna-need-a-bigger-moat-478a8df6a0d2

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

That article is from 10 months ago.
Is open source catching up still? Or have the goalposts moved too much since then?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago

Open source models are still advancing quickly, pretty much everything the article mentions is still valid today.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If you can't use it for porn and you can't use it to make pictures of powerful people in unflattering situations then what is the use case for AI?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

To remove proletariat needs of billionaires and eventually remove those peasants from earth, so that 1% pigs could enjoy a little more lifespan. This is the only purpose of ~~open~~AI behind closed doors.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Lol I always love AI discussions, it invariably involves sides of people not affected by it flinging shit at each other. Very crunchy popcorn, scrumptious, even.

[+] [email protected] -27 points 6 months ago (6 children)

Good. The viability of creative jobs is more important than letting some dweebs LARP as artists and make bespoke porn for themselves .

[–] [email protected] 40 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Amazing that we live in year 2024, and there are still people out there who don't get the importance of keeping technology open.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They understand.

They want to take money.

Everyone intuitively knows what is best for humanity

Most people even know that money won't bring happiness

But most are bought in and the hunter gatherer competitive instincts are stronger than reason

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Yes people famously get into art because they want to get rich.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 6 months ago (1 children)

artists aren't excused from technological proletarianization. Yes it hurts, you are going to get the value of your labor stolen by Disney and you will have to work in AI prompt generator mines. Billions of artisans, peasants and petty bourgeois in history have suffered the same indignity of being forced into wage labor. The bourgeoisie strips of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the writer, the scientist, into its paid wage labourers. Now it is the artist's turn. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and humans are compelled to face with sober senses their real conditions of life, and their relations with their kind. So do not expect the bourgeoisie or their governments to provide you or or your occupation with special protections, they don't care, they exist to make profit and they will crush you into dust as soon it's profitable to do so.

The solution is and has always been class consciousness followed by proletarian revolution. If there is any upside to proletarianization it is that more people are introduced into the only revolutionary class. Put your artistic talents to use and create some agitprop, but don't expect to be paid for it. Every reward we get has to be fought for.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Protecting creative jobs is extremely important, full stop. AI generation is a destabilizing development, I don't want to see it locked up in walled gardens or thrown away though. What I hope to see is a new generation of artists pushing the boundaries with open source AI tools. Yeah a lot of that's going to be bespoke porn... What am I even saying...?

We're just apes with fancy tools afterall. The same things were said about photoshop and digital art. We'll be fine, just get stocked up with some brain bleach.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Every non artist who doesn’t know shit about any creative workflow always regurgitates this “it’s a tool that will empower artists” line. Every working artist who understands what they’re talking about says this will lead to the elimination of 90% of jobs and just leave one underpaid guy churning out stolen artwork at a breakneck pace.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Artists had the exact same reaction when photography was invented. Simply taking what artists say as gospel isn't any more rational because artists also have their own biases. Meanwhile, the problem with jobs doesn't come from the technology but from the capitalist system of relations. Maybe we shouldn't be structuring society in a way where people have to do work for the sake of doing work.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

As the photographic industry was the refuge of every would-be painter, every painter too ill-endowed or too lazy to complete his studies, this universal infatuation bore not only the mark of a blindness, an imbecility, but had also the air of a vengeance. I do not believe, or at least I do not wish to believe, in the absolute success of such a brutish conspiracy, in which, as in all others, one finds both fools and knaves; but I am convinced that the ill-applied developments of photography, like all other purely material developments of progress, have contributed much to the impoverishment of the French artistic genius, which is already so scarce. It is nonetheless obvious that this industry, by invading the territories of art, has become art’s most mortal enemy, and that the confusion of their several functions prevents any of them from being properly fulfilled.

― Charles Baudelaire, On Photography, from The Salon of 1859

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Similar things were also said about CG in general particularly in 90's and 2000's when it spreaded from a niche to places like big cinema. And speaking of cinema...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

The rise of CG did eliminate jobs in the SFX area. Make up, costumes, set dec, stop motion animation, animatronics, etc. But whereas someone in animatronics can retrain to use CG, there’s nowhere for an artist being replaced by a neural learning program to go. The program produces a finished end product. There is no pipeline for it to fit into. I feel like pro A.I. people are deliberately obtuse about this.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

If you ever actually tried using these tools you'd realize that what you're saying is complete and utter nonsense. The workflows for generating stuff with AI tools are already getting very complex. This technology isn't magic, it's just a different way to produce art where the tool takes care of the mechanical aspects. A human is still very much needed to direct what's actually produced.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Couldn't agree more! Capitalism sucks! Also to add on to that, artist haven't come to many consensies about generative AI. The only one I think everyone can agree on is that it'll be disruptive, and makes the future for people who earn a living creating art even more uncertain than it already was. Whether that future is good or bad is entirely up for debate, although I think it'll land somewhere in the middle. Regardless of any of that, Pandora's box is open and it can't be closed.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

Exactly, this is a disruptive technology that will change the way art is created going forward. There will be positive and negative aspects associated with it just like every new technology. One positive aspect I can definitely see is that it will allow a lot of people who lack technical skills for producing visual art to express themselves.

And it's also worth noting that the workflows are already getting fairly sophisticated. It's not just a matter of typing in a prompt and getting an image back. People are using stuff like control nets to pose the characters in the scene, inpaint specific details, etc. It's a different set of skills from traditional art, but it still requires expertise to produce a particular result you're looking for.

The way I look at it is that this tech will help automate a lot of tedious work involved in creating art, but it still takes a person with good taste to produce art that's interesting and engaging. In this sense it's quite similar to photography. Anybody can pick up a camera and start shooting pictures, but it takes an artists to create interesting pictures that people find meaningful. This is no different.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

artist haven't come to many consensies about generative AI

If you posted or read anything in any artist spaces whatsoever you would know this is untrue

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

I have, and it's pretty presumptuous of you to speak for an entire group of diverse people like that. Artist can't agree on what art is let alone if any one method is superior to another. I will say I've perceived there is a lot more anxiety than excitement over Generative AI but it would be foolish to assume that there is a consensus.

Artist is probably the second most diverse term for a group of people I can think of, behind the word people. Off the top of my head Corridor Digital embrace AI. They're pushing it's boundaries and are acutely aware that AI is destabilizing. Unless you don't consider them artists. I am not implying that they speak for all artists, or even that their opinion is aligned with the majority opinion. I'm merely providing an example of positive discourse on the subject.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Simply taking what artists say as gospel isn't any more rational

How about knowing what you’re talking about, is that more rational? Making a painting and taking a photograph have separate and distinct end products, so of course they’re going to fall into separate niches. If a VFX artist working for 70k a year and an AI tool that costs a 2k yearly license produce identical results, than obviously the artist’s job is going to be eliminated to reduce overhead.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Again, the problem here is with the economic system as opposed to technology. Surely you can understand this yes?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I understand it and while it’s true, it’s also a deflection. Unless you’re an accelerationist.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

How is it a deflection? The technology exists, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube at this point. Might as well start engaging with reality. And not sure what pointing out that capitalism is the problem has to do with accelerationism. You're being incoherent here.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's impossible to LARP as an artist. Everyone who creates is an artist, whether you like it or not.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

AI tech bros don’t create anything and probably never will. The merchant who said “please paint a picture of my wife here’s some money” didn’t create the Mona Lisa. Da Vinci, the guy who actually painted it, created the Mona Lisa.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Somehow I doubt da Vinci and a modern digital artist toiling away in Photoshop would be able to agree on the definition of, or criteria for, what it means to be an artist...

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Again, another thing that sounds good unless you know what you’re talking about. I paint digitally and with acrylic and oil, which isn’t that different from the methods Da Vinci would have utilized. If you wanted to paint the Mona Lisa in photoshop the expertise required is the same minus only color mixing and physical preparation and finishing. Regardless of method, saying “paint this picture for me” isn’t making art. The claim is on its face absurd. If I go to the hospital and say “heal this person” am I now a doctor?

Weird how all it takes to turn an ostensible leftist into a sneering lib condescending to an entire classification of worker is to insult their little toy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I paint digitally and with acrylic and oil, which isn’t that different from the methods Da Vinci would have utilized. If you wanted to paint the Mona Lisa in photoshop the expertise required is the same minus only color mixing and physical preparation and finishing.

So, you're really saying the expertise required is not the same, then?

Regardless of method, saying “paint this picture for me” isn’t making art. The claim is on its face absurd.

Who is claiming that? Not me. Anyone who has used a generative AI tool for more than 10 seconds knows this isn't true.

If I go to the hospital and say “heal this person” am I now a doctor?

This is a bad analogy. If in some far off future we had some magical "auto-doc" device that could heal injuries, etc., but still required someone with sufficient knowledge to operate the device, I would call them a doctor, or perhaps a medical engineer. Yes.

Weird how all it takes to turn an ostensible leftist into a sneering lib condescending to an entire classification of worker is to insult their little toy.

What did you mean by this? The only one sneering and condescending here is you lol.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

This is a bad analogy. If in some far off future we had some magical "auto-doc" device that could heal injuries, etc., but still required someone with sufficient knowledge to operate the device, I would call them a doctor, or perhaps a medical engineer. Yes.

“Text goes in images come out” is the central conceit of the entire technology, what the hell are you talking about. The entire thing is meant to be super easy. I have used it, it does not require any special expertise.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

If that were true, there would be no reason for advanced tools like ComfyUI to exist.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

AI tech bros don’t create anything and probably never will.

Thanks for saying it. I am sick of people pretending otherwise. The only reason we are not yet fucked is because technology was not automated beyond production factories with a high death risk. We are going to be soon, though.

Human creativity is the price that will be paid by our species for the existence of garbage AI generation tools.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago

downbear

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Artists three years ago: Being an artist under capitalism sucks ass, I'm forced to make soulless corporate "art" for almost no money and I hate it.

Artists now: Hey! My corporate art gigs!

If AI can replace your job, you weren't doing art, you were doing illustration. That's like 19th century painters complaining about photographs replacing royal portraits. Sucks for the lost income (the same way it sucks for anyone whose job is automated, artists aren't special there, almost none of the jobs from 200 years ago still exist). But let's not pretend that what is being replaced had great creative or artistic value to begin with. If it did, AI couldn't do it.