AIs gunning for our precious freelancers

[keenir]

if you don't know what the real dangers are, you can't take effective precautions. you don't handle oil fires the same as regular fires.

Nobody has explained why the dangers I am describing are not real, though.

we HAVE done so, and repeatedly so.

Machines capable of producing passable imitations of art and literature already exist.

pigs can produce art too...are you saying we're also going to lose jobs to pigs?

Machines capable of beating any human at chess or folding proteins already exist. Computer hardware and AI models are getting more powerful everyday. Unless the current onslaught of digital innovation suddenly hits a wall, computers will overtake humans and possibly very soon.

and then what? say they somehow miraculously do overtake humans...nothing will happen.

[malloc]

pigs can produce art too...are you saying we're also going to lose jobs to pigs?

Show me the pig that can draw passable imitations of any human artist. You know perfectly well that no such pig exists nor could they so I don't understand why you feel the need to invoke novelty swine. Meanwhile generative AI capable of competing with human artists and writers already exists.

Machines capable of beating any human at chess or folding proteins already exist. Computer hardware and AI models are getting more powerful everyday. Unless the current onslaught of digital innovation suddenly hits a wall, computers will overtake humans and possibly very soon.

and then what? say they somehow miraculously do overtake humans...nothing will happen.

Then humans will find themselves unemployable and indeed superfluous to the operation and management of civilization. Corporations will lay us off by the millions, academia will ditch human scholars for computers, and even states may replace democratically elected human politicians with artificial intelligence. Humans will find themselves unable to make a living or even maintain control over civilization.

[keenir]

pigs can produce art too...are you saying we're also going to lose jobs to pigs?

Show me the pig that can draw passable imitations of any human artist.

why? you still haven't shown us an AI that can do the same.

You know perfectly well that no such pig exists nor could they so I don't understand why you feel the need to invoke novelty swine. Meanwhile generative AI capable of competing with human artists and writers already exists.

except not. The Princess Bride is not what civilization looks like.

Machines capable of beating any human at chess or folding proteins already exist. Computer hardware and AI models are getting more powerful everyday. Unless the current onslaught of digital innovation suddenly hits a wall, computers will overtake humans and possibly very soon.

and then what? say they somehow miraculously do overtake humans...nothing will happen.

Then humans will find themselves unemployable and indeed superfluous to the operation and management of civilization. Corporations will lay us off by the millions, academia will ditch human scholars for computers, and even states may replace democratically elected human politicians with artificial intelligence. Humans will find themselves unable to make a living or even maintain control over civilization.

given that the corporations and academia and states will still be human, that means that humans will still control civilization.

[Travis B.]

pigs can produce art too...are you saying we're also going to lose jobs to pigs?

Show me the pig that can draw passable imitations of any human artist. You know perfectly well that no such pig exists nor could they so I don't understand why you feel the need to invoke novelty swine. Meanwhile generative AI capable of competing with human artists and writers already exists.

So why is it that AI-generated art and writings are almost immediately recognizable as such if AI is truly able to compete with human artists and writers? The problem is not AI here, the problem is that the people running the capitalist show don't care that art and writings actually look like humans created them.

[malloc]

So why is it that AI-generated art and writings are almost immediately recognizable as such if AI is truly able to compete with human artists and writers? The problem is not AI here, the problem is that the people running the capitalist show don't care that art and writings actually look like humans created them.

The quality of AI generated imagery and text varies greatly depending on the specific model and other factors. Certainly there are many terrible examples of AI generated images, particularly for niche subject matter. Quite often I see laughable depictions of prehistoric animals, tyrannosaurs with three legs and two mouths or leopards with crocodile skin passed off as inostrancevia. Obviously they struggle with subjects underrepresented in their training material. Nonetheless they are also undergoing constant revision like all software and will undoubtedly get better over time. One must also consider the issue of sampling bias. We readily notice all the crappy AI generated images while all the convincing ones slip past us, giving the impression that all AI images look obviously terrible.

why? you still haven't shown us an AI that can do the same.

The internet is overflowing with imitations of artwork produced by generative AI, much of it increasingly to distinguish from anything humans can produce. Artists are constantly worrying about losing gigs to AI that can replicate their work without their expense. Film studios are chomping at the bit to replace screenwriters and even actors with AI with only strikes holding them back.

except not. The Princess Bride is not what civilization looks like.

Not sure what you mean by that. It has been quite some time since I watched the film but I certainly don't recall any subplots involving intelligent pigs.

given that the corporations and academia and states will still be human, that means that humans will still control civilization.

Except that all these institutions will have powerful incentives to replace expensive and unreliable humans with cheaper artificial intelligence, particularly if AI ends up outperforming humans. Corporations that replace humans with AI will see soaring productivity and plummeting expenses, giving them massive advantages over human-centered corporations.

[keenir]

. Quite often I see laughable depictions of prehistoric animals, tyrannosaurs with three legs and two mouths or leopards with crocodile skin passed off as inostrancevia.

whats your point? when I was part of SPEC, I did a search for information on Docodonts, a mesozoic clade of mammals...and found someone had stolen a picture from the SPEC website, and used it in the docodont wiki page.

Obviously they struggle with subjects underrepresented in their training material

when their training material is the entire internet, and their results are shoddy and horrible, thats not 'subjects underrepresented in their training', is it??

consider the issue of sampling bias. We readily notice all the crappy AI generated images while all the convincing ones slip past us,

see, you are an AI - you just proved it.

why? you still haven't shown us an AI that can do the same.

The internet is overflowing with imitations of artwork produced by generative AI, much of it increasingly to distinguish from anything humans can produce.

so your argument is "because humans are able to make crappy drawings, and AI can make crappy drawings, we can't tell one crappy "artist" from another,,, therefore I'm correct that AI drawings look like human drawings." is that it?

Artists are constantly worrying about losing gigs to AI that can replicate their work without their expense.

artists constantly worry about losing gigs, full stop - thats always been true.

Film studios are chomping at the bit to replace screenwriters and even actors with AI with only strikes holding them back.

you keep claiming that, yet you shy away when we ask you to cite your work.

except not. The Princess Bride is not what civilization looks like.

Not sure what you mean by that. It has been quite some time since I watched the film but I certainly don't recall any subplots involving intelligent pigs.

the lead villain and most evil person in that film, was a six-fingered man. AI on a good day can make a human with six fingers (if not more or worse)

given that the corporations and academia and states will still be human, that means that humans will still control civilization.

Except that all these institutions will have powerful incentives to replace expensive and unreliable humans with cheaper artificial intelligence, particularly if AI ends up outperforming humans.[/quote]

...which you still refuse to substantiate.

Corporations that replace humans with AI will see soaring productivity and plummeting expenses, giving them massive advantages over human-centered corporations.

except if you replace all the inefficient people with AI (and why not just replace them with people who actaully are good at their jobs??), the company will do nothing because you have replaced everyone - even the investors.

also, the AI head of a company, will not seek to do anything, thus the company does nothing. or gets taken over by another human-run company.

[malloc]

so your argument is "because humans are able to make crappy drawings, and AI can make crappy drawings, we can't tell one crappy "artist" from another,,, therefore I'm correct that AI drawings look like human drawings." is that it?

Yes. Perhaps there are artists with such superlative skill that current AI models cannot replicate their work, but they represent the minority of artists. Expecting everyone in the arts to achieve that level of skill simply to make a living is unrealistic and unreasonable. Furthermore image generators are only getting better with each software update whereas human visual artists already peaked ages ago, at least from a purely technical standpoint.

you keep claiming that, yet you shy away when we ask you to cite your work.

Several years ago, the Writers Guild of America went on strike in part to oppose attempts by studios to replace writers with LLMs. Perhaps you have forgotten, but it was quite prominent in the news and especially in discourse surrounding artificial intelligence.

Except that all these institutions will have powerful incentives to replace expensive and unreliable humans with cheaper artificial intelligence, particularly if AI ends up outperforming humans.

...which you still refuse to substantiate.

That is simply how capitalism works, though. Businesses seek to minimize costs and maximize productivity, even if it makes things worse for everyone outside the C-suite and investors. If advances in artificial intelligence allow them to produce more without having to pay humans or deal with them playing hooky, then obviously they will embrace the technology. The few corporations that put humanity first will fall behind the more efficient and productive AI-based corporations.

given that we used to think the human brain was one short step away from the brain of G-D, thats quite the development.

Incidentally, are you religious? No judgement, just wondering if you are assuming humans have a soul that AI cannot replicate or something.

[zompist]

so your argument is "because humans are able to make crappy drawings, and AI can make crappy drawings, we can't tell one crappy "artist" from another,,, therefore I'm correct that AI drawings look like human drawings." is that it?

Yes. Perhaps there are artists with such superlative skill that current AI models cannot replicate their work, but they represent the minority of artists.

[citation needed]

Maybe you like the AI style of art. But it's professional artists you're carelessly insulting, and they're still better at their job than AIs.

[keenir]

c'mon, Zompist, you should realize Malloc doesn't care about paltry things like the feelings of normal people - only about the emotions of AI and Trump

so your argument is "because humans are able to make crappy drawings, and AI can make crappy drawings, we can't tell one crappy "artist" from another,,, therefore I'm correct that AI drawings look like human drawings." is that it?

Yes. Perhaps there are artists with such superlative skill that current AI models cannot replicate their work, but they represent the minority of artists.

six billion people are the minority? i stand corrected - its not capitalism you have trouble with, its math.

Expecting everyone in the arts to achieve that level of skill simply to make a living is unrealistic and unreasonable.

what level of skill? being able to draw humans with two sets of four fingers and a thumb?

Furthermore image generators are only getting better with each software update whereas human visual artists already peaked ages ago, at least from a purely technical standpoint

really? please tell us, which of the ages was the peak of human artistic ability?

Incidentally, are you religious? No judgement, just wondering if you are assuming humans have a soul that AI cannot replicate or something.

given your inability to understand how computers work, I'm not sure I trust you to understand something more complicated like capitalism.

Maybe you like the AI style of art. But it's professional artists you're carelessly insulting, and they're still better at their job than AIs.

another lie, Malloc, really? you have every intention of judging me, no matter how i answer. (and i know so, based on your past posts - you castigating people who think a soul is needed to do so much as add, much less far far more}

[malloc]

[citation needed]

Maybe you like the AI style of art. But it's professional artists you're carelessly insulting, and they're still better at their job than AIs.

Certainly some professional artists better than image generators but you must concede that plenty of artists are doing nothing that AI could not replicate. If your portfolio consists of fanart drawn in the manga style, then image generators can almost certainly replicate your work. They already have any well-known fictional character in their databases along with how manga style works. I quite enjoy drawings of pretty anime girls but I have no illusions about them requiring exceptional skill or avant-garde vision.

six billion people are the minority? i stand corrected - its not capitalism you have trouble with, its math... what level of skill? being able to draw humans with two sets of four fingers and a thumb?

What do you even mean by that? It sounds like you are wildly overestimating the number of artists in the world. Certainly there aren't six billion people who can draw more accurately or convincingly than image generators.

another lie, Malloc, really? you have every intention of judging me, no matter how i answer. (and i know so, based on your past posts - you castigating people who think a soul is needed to do so much as add, much less far far more}

Quite honestly I think that much of the skepticism toward artificial intelligence reflects an implicitly Cartesian or religious view of consciousness and intelligence arising from an immaterial soul. Sure most educated people understand on an intellectual level that humans are animals made of the same chemical elements as everything else, but they haven't quite internalized that or grappled with the fundamental implications of that.

[zompist]

[citation needed]

Maybe you like the AI style of art. But it's professional artists you're carelessly insulting, and they're still better at their job than AIs.

Certainly some professional artists better than image generators but you must concede that plenty of artists are doing nothing that AI could not replicate.

No, I don't have to concede your fantasies. Professional artists are better than AIs, period. AIs can do a pastiche, yes-- as a beginning artist can. Or a photocopier.

If your portfolio consists of fanart drawn in the manga style, then image generators can almost certainly replicate your work.

If you think so, you probably have pretty bad taste. Even a fan artist brings something personal to their work. Once their work is stolen, then maybe an AI can do a pastiche of it. If you think it's the same thing, you're not looking very carefully.

[keenir]

[citation needed]

Maybe you like the AI style of art. But it's professional artists you're carelessly insulting, and they're still better at their job than AIs.

Certainly some professional artists better than image generators but you must concede that plenty of artists are doing nothing that AI could not replicate

you're confusing image generators with photocopiers. thats not good for your argument.

. If your portfolio consists of fanart drawn in the manga style, then image generators can almost certainly replicate your work

we've already had this conversation, and you failed to prove that statement then; can you prove it now?

They already have any well-known fictional character in their databases along with how manga style works. I quite enjoy drawings of pretty anime girls but I have no illusions about them requiring exceptional skill or avant-garde vision.

then i feel bad that you haven't seen good-quality pictures of, well, probably anything.

six billion people are the minority? i stand corrected - its not capitalism you have trouble with, its math... what level of skill? being able to draw humans with two sets of four fingers and a thumb?

What do you even mean by that? It sounds like you are wildly overestimating the number of artists in the world.

pretty much every small child colors and doodles - and their artwork is better than your beloved AIs.

Certainly there aren't six billion people who can draw more accurately or convincingly than image generators.

I don't need to bother proving you wrong, because a. you're not going to pay attention; and b. you can't prove a negative.

another lie, Malloc, really? you have every intention of judging me, no matter how i answer. (and i know so, based on your past posts - you castigating people who think a soul is needed to do so much as add, much less far far more}

Quite honestly I think that much of the skepticism toward artificial intelligence reflects an implicitly Cartesian or religious view of consciousness and intelligence arising from an immaterial soul.

...as opposed to all the evidence we've been showing you for...how long has it been?

Sure most educated people understand on an intellectual level that humans are animals made of the same chemical elements as everything else, but they haven't quite internalized that or grappled with the fundamental implications of that.

and can you prove that?

[malloc]

we've already had this conversation, and you failed to prove that statement then; can you prove it now?

Yes. Prompt an image generator for any fictional character drawn manga style and you'll get something indistinguishable from plenty of middling artists. If time and energy permitted, I could find dozens of random images, both human-drawn and AI-generated, and you would have no idea which was which. I can hardly tell you how many times I found an image that looked amazing only to notice a caption indicating it was AI generated.

If you think so, you probably have pretty bad taste. Even a fan artist brings something personal to their work. Once their work is stolen, then maybe an AI can do a pastiche of it. If you think it's the same thing, you're not looking very carefully.

That sounds nice, but it doesn't prove that you can always distinguish AI images from human art, let alone prove that human artists are always better. Everyone makes fun of AI for messing up hands but nobody notices all the AI generate images without obvious defects like that.

[keenir]

we've already had this conversation, and you failed to prove that statement then; can you prove it now?

Yes. Prompt an image generator for any fictional character drawn manga style and you'll get something indistinguishable from plenty of middling artists.

your idea of middling or my idea of middling?

If time and energy permitted, I could find dozens of random images, both human-drawn and AI-generated, and you would have no idea which was which.

and for a very simple reason: right now, as things stand, I'm sorry but I don't trust you to label them honestly before or after i say which is which.

also...can i ask why time and energy don't permit?

I can hardly tell you how many times I found an image that looked amazing only to notice a caption indicating it was AI generated.

probably pasted on by a human who wanted to prank people like you.

If you think so, you probably have pretty bad taste. Even a fan artist brings something personal to their work. Once their work is stolen, then maybe an AI can do a pastiche of it. If you think it's the same thing, you're not looking very carefully.

That sounds nice, but it doesn't prove that you can always distinguish AI images from human art, let alone prove that human artists are always better.

if you bothered to read that statement, it actually does.

Everyone makes fun of AI for messing up hands but nobody notices all the AI generate images without obvious defects like that.

okay, so absense of evidence is evidence of existence?

[keenir]

I have a feeling I've done it again. dammitt.

...

[malloc]

and for a very simple reason: right now, as things stand, I'm sorry but I don't trust you to label them honestly before or after i say which is which.

Meanwhile I don't trust you not to reverse image search them, which would make the whole exercise pointless.

also...can i ask why time and energy don't permit?

Various reasons. My work hours are very long so I would have to wait until my days off and have had the chance to rest, it would take hours of combing the internet for suitable examples while also figuring out the copyright situation of reposting the artwork of random artists, and so forth. Nonetheless it looks like I may have to go through all that trouble just to prove my point since nothing else is working thus far.

If you think so, you probably have pretty bad taste. Even a fan artist brings something personal to their work. Once their work is stolen, then maybe an AI can do a pastiche of it. If you think it's the same thing, you're not looking very carefully.

That sounds nice, but it doesn't prove that you can always distinguish AI images from human art, let alone prove that human artists are always better.

if you bothered to read that statement, it actually does.

Zompist may claim that he can look carefully at any artwork and tell whether it was made by a human with a soul or merely an AI but he has not demonstrated this.

[zompist]

If you think so, you probably have pretty bad taste. Even a fan artist brings something personal to their work. Once their work is stolen, then maybe an AI can do a pastiche of it. If you think it's the same thing, you're not looking very carefully.

That sounds nice, but it doesn't prove that you can always distinguish AI images from human art,

Always? No. But most people can identify AI images. Here's someone who ran a test. Though I have quibbles about his methodology (he's cherrypicking AI art he likes), he found the average score was 60% correct. (I.e. people could guess human-or-AI correct significantly better than chance.) But note, he goes on to say

The average participant scored 60%, but people who hated AI art scored 64%, professional artists scored 66%, and people who were both professional artists and hated AI art scored 68%.

The highest score was 98% (49/50), which 5 out of 11,000 people achieved.

So, detecting AI is a trainable human skill.

Also note: the test is not easy, largely because AI is good at pastiche. Which is not a surprise to anyone who knows how these things are actually trained and made. AIs are trained on a shitload of human art, so they can generate things-that-look-like-human-art. That impresses people who don't do art, like yourself. Actual artists can do better.

let alone prove that human artists are always better.

Please identify an objective test which would prove, to everyone's satisfaction, that AI art is better than human. Don't neglect to claim that you know better than every artist and philosopher in the world, who would tell you that art is subjective.

[keenir]

Nonetheless it looks like I may have to go through all that trouble just to prove my point since nothing else is working thus far.

this is what happens when you not only cry wolf, but you're saying that the wolf is a civilization Replace All, to use a computer term. you think the wolf will eat us all, when you haven't even proven that there actually is a wolf.

an aardwolf, sure...they eat termites.

Zompist may claim that he can look carefully at any artwork and tell whether it was made by a human with a soul or merely an AI but he has not demonstrated this.

you're the only one claiming that a soul is needed - and you haven't demonstrated squat on any of your points.

[keenir]

Please identify an objective test which would prove, to everyone's satisfaction, that AI art is better than human. Don't neglect to claim that you know better than every artist and philosopher in the world, who would tell you that art is subjective.

I'm still waiting to hear the answer on which part of human history has the best artwork...since Malloc says its been ages since we hit the height of human artistic ability.

[Raphael]

I'm still waiting to hear the answer on which part of human history has the best artwork

If you forgive me a little off topic diversion, by the standards of today's art theorists, art is only art if it challenges or questions society's or the viewer's assumptions, so, if you really take that standard seriously, the vast majority of periods in human history didn't produce any art, because the kind of art-like stuff produced during those periods didn't have that intention.