/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20300634]

What are some books that will help me understand AI's impact on art and artists?
Pic related is going to make most digital artists irrelevant within a few years. GPT-4 will automate most fiction writing. And so on and so on.

[Anonymous No.20300651]

no, it won't

[Anonymous No.20300656]

>>20300651
Yes it will
>“A photo of a sleeping orange tabby cat” generated by a Dall-E 2

[Anonymous No.20300657]

>>20300634
Imagine being as dumb as you are, OP. I hope you get some help.

[Anonymous No.20300664]

>>20300634
>OP doesen't understand what art is
Come on, this is some STEM level post

[Anonymous No.20300677]

>>20300651
>>20300657
>>20300664
https://pics.me.me/can-a-robot-write-a-symphony-can-a-robot-take-2456293.png

[Anonymous No.20300681]

>>20300657
>>20300664
Okay, how will we determine that something is special human art when AI can copy your style perfectly?

[Anonymous No.20300710]

>>20300664
Dumbest post yet.

[Anonymous No.20300712]

>>20300634
>>20300656
>>20300681
Instead of being such a STEM nigger, read some Walter Benjamin 'The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction'

[Anonymous No.20300716]

>>20300681
>can copy your style

There's your answer. AI isn't creative.

[Anonymous No.20300734]

If you're skeptical of the idea that artists as a whole are about to face some existential problems, just look at this
https://archive.org/details/1111101000-robots

[Anonymous No.20300742]

>>20300734
So, it makes tumblr drawings?

[Anonymous No.20300751]

>>20300681
NPCs and undiscerning midwits will be content with AI "art"

[Anonymous No.20300767]

>>20300716
https://ai.googleblog.com/2022/04/pathways-language-model-palm-scaling-to.html
Turns out AI can create novel explanations of things

[Anonymous No.20300778]

>>20300716
The AI defeat of Lee Sedol used tactics that were never seen before.

[Anonymous No.20300825]

>>20300767
>>20300778
That doesn't mean it's creative. For example, evolution might seem the product of a creative force but in reality it's a product of chance and necessity, within certain parameters. Rock formations might seem the product of a creative force, but they're a product of chance too, within certain parameters. Perhaps there was a creative force behind defining the parameters, and this is certainly the case with any AI, but that doesn't mean the AI is creative in itself.

[Anonymous No.20300861]

>>20300825
Why does necessity preclude creativity? If I write a sonnet to woo a lady, is that 'uncreative' because it ultimately serves the necessity of procreation?

[Anonymous No.20300876]

Like always, the profane masses such as OP will continue to consume excrement while true art will continue to be created and enjoyed by the real humans. The only difference is that the excrement you slop up will be even more vile and empty.

[Anonymous No.20300888]

>>20300825
One small problem: so what?

[Anonymous No.20300896]

>>20300876
Don't pretend you'll magically be able to tell the difference once the technology advances enough. >>20300825 has already conceded 'creativity' as dependent on the nature/intention of the creator, rather than being a quality of the work itself. This means that 'creative' and 'uncreative' art is indistinguishable.

[Anonymous No.20301007]

>>20300712
Best post
>>20300710
Nigger STEM post

[Anonymous No.20301021]

Nigga wut
T. oil paint user

[Anonymous No.20301047]

>>20300634
>GPT-4 will automate most fiction writing.
Not even state of the art machine learning can undress and redress a character properly.
Nor can it deal with negations.

[Anonymous No.20301182]

>>20300634
What was that AI website that writes stories based on one sentence input?

[Anonymous No.20301682]

>>20301182
AI Dungeon?

[Anonymous No.20302152]

>>20300896
>a computer can apply filters to an existing image
wow
very art
such deep
wow
le commit sudoku because pwnt by a box of switches

[Anonymous No.20302179]

>>20300634
Artists are all pretentious faggots who deserve to be replaced by machines.

[Anonymous No.20302195]

'art' made by machines will be like looking at a sunset or flower. it might be beautiful, sublime even, but it's not art.

[Anonymous No.20302569]

>>20302195
Now define art

[Anonymous No.20302601]

>>20302152
If you think that image is just depicting a filter, you don't understand what neural networks are and should stay out of this thread.

https://vimeo.com/369531132

[Anonymous No.20302749]

>>20302601
>you don't understand what neural networks are and should stay out of this thread

Go back.

[Anonymous No.20302855]

>>20300634
Any books that explain that the answer to the God Paradox is AI?—that indeed humans are superior to God because humans can create something larger than itself (which God cannot even achieve)?

[Anonymous No.20302923]

>>20302601
>https://vimeo.com/369531132
>ZOMG LE ANIMADED FILDERS EGGSDEE
>but super cereal because muh lofi beats to study to fr fr on god
Enjoy being a slave to a fucking computer program while human beings laugh at you.

[Anonymous No.20302927]

>>20302855
That's some top shelf pilpul; the college education to which you are eternally indebted will surely serve you well.

[Anonymous No.20302996]

>>20302855
Nobody who talks like this has ever actually tried to program any kind of algorithm, let alone an actual genetic algorithm or neural meme network, to accomplish shit and solve problems.
AI is not going to end up anything like you faggots imagine. All of the absolute best examples that are supposed to be so earth-shattering are, as you can see in this thread, only good for making half-assed copies of things humans already came up with. By their very nature, they will never be able to move past that.

[Anonymous No.20303047]

>>20302195
This. Art has an inherent human element to it. No human input means it's not art.

[Anonymous No.20303053]

>>20300634
Robots lack the consciousness to make quality art. At this point most of it is just decent.

[Anonymous No.20303528]

>>20300712
I read this and was unimpressed lol Marxists are gay

[Anonymous No.20303556]

>>20300634
It's hilarious how the same people have been saying the same thing for decades now and just keep pushing back the date. I remember when self-driving cars were going to completely destroy the trucking workforce in 10 years, every 10 years, for the past 50 years.

You faggots are worse than the global warming doomsayers, both groups consist exclusively of idiots trying to appear smart.

[Anonymous No.20303559]

>>20300767
So can schizophrenics

[Anonymous No.20304294]

>ITT: denial

[Anonymous No.20304303]

>>20300734
this scared the living shit out of me.
it's over.

[Anonymous No.20304323]

art has evolved beyond painting, performance artists are out here starving themselves and have sex with corpses and id like to see a robot do that

[Anonymous No.20304363]

IT'S FUCKING OVER

[Anonymous No.20304372]

>>20304323
>some dude who eats his own shit in front of an bored audience is the same as the AI who will imitate Michelangelo

[Anonymous No.20304391]

>>20302601
You’re on /lit/ you STEM nigger, nobody here gives a shit about technology.

[Anonymous No.20304397]

>>20304391
You should.

[Anonymous No.20304436]

>>20304372
no im not saying its the same, im saying art has evolved beyond the canvas into performance. something a robot cant do

>In the mid-1970s, his Los Angeles performances, events and installations were influenced by the 'Poor Theatre' of Jerzy Grotowski, as well as the cathartic exposure of personal experiences seen in the work of Viennese actionist artist Rudolf Schwarzkogler and early feminist performance art. Several of his early events were held in private or in front of a small number of witnesses. Scare was an encouragement to examine the physical effects of fear. Duncan donned a disguise and fired a blank-loaded pistol at point-blank range at two carefully selected participants, Tom Recchion and Paul McCarthy, chosen “...because they were close friends who would not expect anything like this to happen to them and who would be able to appreciate the event as I intended it”.[3] Bus Ride sexually stimulated unsuspecting passengers on a city bus with a liquid poured into the ventilation system in order to observe the results.[4] Blind Date, involving intercourse with a female corpse followed by a vasectomy, both conducted in private, was presented as an audio-only event to an audience in a darkened warehouse, a demonstration of how men are conditioned to turn emotional suffering into rage.[5] An untitled character-exchange event with McCarthy was held in private in McCarthy's studio, where Duncan recorded actions to video that McCarthy immediately erased.

[Anonymous No.20304440]

>>20304436
This isn't art. This is pure shit.

[Anonymous No.20304452]

>>20300742
>so, it makes tumblr drawings?
>so, it makes renaissance paintings?
>so, it makes animations?
>so, it makes movies?
>so, it makes 3D sculptures?
>so, it makes 3D games with complex stories and characters?
Cope. In the future you WILL be reading books better than Shakespeare and Dante written by an AI and made in approximately 15.84 seconds and you WILL like it.

[Anonymous No.20304465]

Why are all AI fags such midwits

[Anonymous No.20304473]

>>20304452
>Cope. In the future you WILL be reading books better than Shakespeare and Dante written by an AI and made in approximately 15.84 seconds and you WILL like it.
That would be impossible, an ai could make a cheap pulp novel given enough data, but there arent thousands of shakespeares to create a second shakespeare from.

[Anonymous No.20304572]

>>20304452
No I won’t because I’m a contrarian

[Anonymous No.20304578]

>>20304473
They're called Black people and if you weren't busy oppressing them every day of their lives they would be producing new Shakespeares every day. Ever heard of monkeys on typewriters?

[Anonymous No.20305158]

>>20302749
>>20302923
>>20304391
>LALALA I can't hear you there's no way most art will be made obsolete in a matter of decades go back to /sci/!
I'm glad you faggots will be made redundant. Totally incapable of facing reality.

[Anonymous No.20305177]

>>20305158
AI is to abstract art as the camera was to realistic art. There's a reason your average person has no need of a portrait artist these days.

[Anonymous No.20305541]

The last Talk Talk albums were so unique because they recorded a bunch of musicians experimenting with different instruments and sounds at a time and then made use of editing technology that was then new to combine the outcomes of these sessions, creating results that would be difficult to come up with if they tried to compose a song following a more standard approach

I think when AI gets so advanced that people are able to generate music, art, landscapes and even faces and voices of their choice by inputting certain parameters you'd see something similar to that, we'll no longer be so restrained by our technical abilities, by a budget, or even by a media format because it would do a lot of the heavy lifting for us. And the more options you have available, the more you're able to experiment, push boundaries and get into territory that an algorithm replicating available data patterns would not be able to. Human art itself becomes robotic when it's so labor-intensive that it must be continuously edited and dumbed down in order to fit formulas that are approved by the market so it can turn a profit, paradoxically AI could get rid of part of this problem and give some of us more creative freedom, and as a bonus the hacks will all be made superfluous and become unemployed

[Anonymous No.20305579]

>>20300751
This. If anything, AI will write genre fiction better than any human ever could. It'll put fantasy writers, lowbrow erotica peddlers, DUDE SCIENCE bros etc. all out of business. Because of the iterative way in which AI learns, the formulaic way in which most genre fiction novels are written will lend to AI an easy facilitation. Genre fiction almost exclusively has that fifth-grader level of writing combined with only nominally differentiable variations on the same structure, e.g.:
>hero's journey, but the big bad is a machine that loves you
>magic, but the magic is made of blood
>enemies are niggers except their skin is actually green and they're called orcs
Genre fiction is unique in that it strips almost all of the human out of the artistic medium. It takes the death of the author to its absolute extreme, in that no touch of the author's artistry—his skill with the medium itself, the way in which he interacts with it, the tiny little elements of human subjectivity that are peppered everywhere in great literature—can be allowed to shine through for fear of alienating the highly-targeted commercial demographics. AI will just be able to do that better.

I don't see how an AI will be able to do the equivalent of what Joyce did. Maybe it'll be able to slurp up all the Joyce-data and write an imitation, but furthering the medium will be on human beings. If art in its most pure form is human expression, an AI will be forever unable to exceed mimicry, because AI is not human.

[Anonymous No.20305594]

>>20305579
AI can already copy Bach pretty well and the technology is in its infancy, it'll be able to imitate Joyce. If anything with a huge body of text to draw on it'll be able to have an even higher density of allusions.

[Anonymous No.20305604]

>>20305594
Joyce wasn't brilliant because he alluded to more things than anyone else.

[Anonymous No.20305621]

>>20305604
Well, his mastery and/or experimental use of language is the primary reason he's considered great, allusion density is secondary, imo, but literature is probably running out of tricks on the former front. Whatever magic you think (insert author) has, AI can and will learn to copy it eventually. However, at the end of the day, it can only copy, not create anything truly new, at least for now. AI will end up being to assist artists in various ways to create new works.

[Anonymous No.20305647]

>>20305621
This is why I don't worry at all about "perfection" too much with respect to contemporary rules of writing. I refuse to allow an AI to assist me in any way. I will position myself to be one of a very few artists anticipating their rejection of AI in favor of the purely human. AI will, in effect, be another industrial revolution. It'll drive the bar for human craftsmanship even higher by again pushing up the quality of goods on average. This is what happened with the industrial revolution, after all: a poor cobbler or shoemaker goes out of business when his goods are more expensive and lower quality than what can be mass produced better and more cheaply at a factory. For all the mystique and novelty of AI, this will be more or less its same effect.

The difference is that intellectual work will now be threatened as well. There's no reason to believe otherwise. The shitty writers will have to actually learn the craft of writing or find something else to do. They will be the cobblers and shoemakers of the machine learning revolution.

[Anonymous No.20305676]

>>20300825
You reductio'd yourself. If evolution made humans (who have creativity), and evolution only needed chance and necessity, then chance and necessity is sufficient for creativity to emerge. You could easily imagine a transformer creating a mesa-optimizer with creativity.


As a secondary point, if you think AI will never go beyond "copying" human art, you need to define your terms because you're either saying something completely trivial and unimportant, or something profoundly imbecilic.

The takes in this thread are truly unsophisticated. I guess the smart kids are content lurking.

[Anonymous No.20305682]

>>20305647
>I will position myself to be one of a very few artists anticipating their rejection of AI in favor of the purely human. AI will, in effect, be another industrial revolution. It'll drive the bar for human craftsmanship even higher by again pushing up the quality of goods on average
A few people will be able use that as a gimmick for awhile, but AI-assisted work will end up being better outright.

[Anonymous No.20305693]

>>20305621
>his mastery and/or experimental use of language is the primary reason he's considered great
Also, you gloss over this and call it a "trick" in the same sentence. AI is good with discrete and countable problems with knowable solutions. A boat-like entity is either a boat or not a boat. A sentence briefly describing it a boat either calls it a constructed craft designed to ferry humans and their goods across a body of water, or it describes it in nonsensical terms, e.g. waterplanks. These are all testable, and AI relies on testable experiments as I understand it. Until it is theoretically or experimentally PROVEN, I will remain unconvinced that AI will be able to more than mimic superficially the appearance of great artists who have already created a body of work. In order to train an AI to fully and completely mimic Joyce, rather than a piece of writing that uses inventive phrases and alludes to things, you would need Joyce himself. The point is that some things are not engineerable in reverse until proven otherwise.

[Anonymous No.20305700]

>>20305693
These technologies are in their infancy. For now they can only copy, then they'll be used to assist artists, then they'll make artists obsolete outright, it's just a matter of how long it'll take. Really, it's not so different from how actual artists draw on old works to create new ones. AI invented new strategies for playing Go, for example. Human players are actually getting better from playing against the most powerful Go AIs.

[Anonymous No.20305703]

>>20305682
Better? How? You can't even define what makes Joyce so great except waving your hands in the direction of "mastery of language." We may be out of our depth when it comes to technology, but you need to understand that you're out of your depth where art is concerned if you think these reductions can just be blithely accepted.

[Anonymous No.20305713]

>>20305700
You're completely ignoring the central point I've made, so I'll restate it. AI requires testable experiments. A Go move either results down the line in a winnable game state or it results in a draw or in a loss. There's nothing even half as objective about art, and if you think there is you should probably try spending ten percent of the time many here have spent appreciating it.

[Anonymous No.20306309]

>>20304473
It's already been done. Not perfectly, of course, the content is complete nonsense. But considering that this has been learnt from scratch using only the works of Shakespeare (as in, all the rules of grammar, punctuation etc in the English language were deduced solely from Shakespeare), it's pretty impressive. It's not hard to envision that this will be taken much further within the next 20 years.

https://trekhleb.dev/machine-learning-experiments/#/experiments/TextGenerationShakespeareRNN

[Anonymous No.20306320]

>>20306309
Is this an actual line from Shakespeare? If not, it's pretty great for an AI generation

[Anonymous No.20306380]

>>20306309
>Look it can still ape things like a child cutting up pieces of the play and gluing them back together without reading it
See
>>20302996

[Anonymous No.20306425]

Can a robot enjoy a good cup of coffee or have its prayers answered by God?
Humanity: 1
Robots: 0

[Anonymous No.20306550]

>>20306380
An RNN network predicts new items from a predefined 'vocabulary', the prediction being based on the sequence of information that precedes it, which is represented either as a series of letters or as a series of words. So yes, what you see there is essentially acting as a specialised form of your phone's autocorrect, probably 'remembering' the previous ten or so words when predicting the next one. But anyone who's played around with things like AI Dungeon will understand that networks are perfectly capable of retaining a much longer memory, which amounts to an 'understanding' of the overall setting and plot etc.

With some human curation on either side of the generation, I think it's certainly possible that new artifacts can be created which emulate human creativity. It's not like you need to train it on just a single author, there is a practically limitless range of literature out there that could be used to create datasets. I think you'd struggle to find human authors who haven't learnt from reading other writers and used that experience to create a new piece of work. This is exactly what neural networks do, so why is it unfeasible that they will one day emulate this process well enough to create something coherent?

[Anonymous No.20306556]

IT'S FUCKING OVER, PALS.
I'LL TURN OFF THE LIGHTS.

[Anonymous No.20306614]

Literally nobody cares if an AI can make an artwork in the same way that nobody cares that (You), an anon could make an artwork. Generating an image is not an artistic accomplishment.

[Anonymous No.20306625]

>>20306614
Holy cope lmao

[Anonymous No.20306641]

>>20306320
This line is not all that brilliant, seem like the kind of rebuttal you'd find on Reddit
>ibn4 rent free
You can just picture someone smugly replying to a post with that as its initial sentence.

[Anonymous No.20306664]

>>20306625
It’s the same as writing a YA fantasy fanfiction fucking whatever. I’m sure there are infants who will enjoy the AI slop in the future. It is not art.

[Anonymous No.20306666]

>>20306625
How is it a cope nigger? No one cares, that's a fact

[Anonymous No.20306680]

>>20306666
>dude no one cares of you make a masterpiece lmao
HAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHHAAHA

[Anonymous No.20306704]

>>20306666
based quads wins

[Anonymous No.20306727]

An ai will never be able to mimic a human's decision making process when making art because it is goal based but also extremely subjective. It can't be done.
also
>digital """artists"""

[Anonymous No.20307331]

>>20305158
>simping for his own replacement
You let africans fuck your wife too, hmm?
Get well soon, little buddy.

[Anonymous No.20307572]

>>20302152

[Anonymous No.20307582]

>>20306666
Nice quads, satan.

[Anonymous No.20307600]

>>20305177
This might be the best take ITT. And just like the camera opened up a niche for photography as a new artistic discipline, the operators of AI systems that generate art will likely find a form of artistic expression in fine-tuning the inputs and parameters of their systems to get interesting results.

[Anonymous No.20307624]

>>20300634
>ZOMG PHOTOGRAPHY WILL KILL PAINTING
>but in 2022
You faggots never learn, do you?

[Anonymous No.20307644]

>>20307624
photography kinda did kill painting tho after all this board is constantly covered in threads about how modern art is "degenerate" because it doens't bother to try to compete with cameras in producing naturalistic output. who knows, the copes artists will have to come up with after AI might be even worse than the modern paintings copes for the camera.

this all assumes dall-e is real and this isn't a theranos style scam after all neither the code nor training set is public and their have been accusations of gpt-3 answers being sourced from human authors

[Anonymous No.20307697]

>>20307644
The obsession with degeneracy is pro naturalism when convenient and against naturalism a moment later, politics don't require consistency.
Mediocre artists will seethe and cope as their furfag commissions dry up a little bit, but art as a whole will go on.

[Anonymous No.20307706]

>>20302923
Laugh while you can, monky-boy!

[Anonymous No.20307713]

> GPT-4 will automate most fiction writing.

what in the bad take? no, it absolutely will not. we don't read fiction because some algorithm cobbled up a frankenstein of past bestsellers, we read fiction because they were *authored* by a specific person, in a specific time, in a specific place, telling a specific truth.

You truly know nothing, Jon Snow...

[Anonymous No.20307730]

>>20307697
yeah i mean high art or fine art or whatever you want to call the investment grade artists that are working today, they usually just come up with the concepts and then have a team of assistants execute on it. i mean if you tell a robot "make me a andy warhol" and it will look like a new andy warhol, but it's not going to be an authentic invesment grade warhol. although that opens up amazing possibilities for artists estates, like what if you train an ai on all of warhols works, notebooks, whatever, and then charge people a few to use it to create new works. kinda like those tupac holograms. imagine if there was a "tupac as a service" web app where you pay a few and it autogenerates a new song virtually indistinguishable from his existing catalog.

[Anonymous No.20307750]

>>20307713
actually i was thinking about this last night, ai could cuz a rebirth of the author because suddenly their "intent" is what differentiates it from computer output. on the other hand i find works having one true discoverable "intent" problematic since ambiguity is an essential part of most art.

[Anonymous No.20307773]

AI-generated art should be a jumping off point for artists.

[Anonymous No.20307932]

AI at best is a tool. Every single AI generated image is off and doesn't even look believable from a thumbnail-level size. Your brain knows these things. It's the same way how no matter how realistic graphics look you know they aren't real. Like that Matrix demo for PS5.

[Anonymous No.20308679]

>>20307932
DALL-E 2 images don't look off

[Anonymous No.20308691]

>>20308679
Take a closer look at them, if you have a monitor to zoom in, you'll notice it fucks up things like hands all the time.

[Anonymous No.20308974]

Start reading lesswrong, anon:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uKp6tBFStnsvrot5t/what-dall-e-2-can-and-cannot-do

[Anonymous No.20310267]

>>20300712
>>20300664
So the last vestige of art really is vanity. The only difference between a human made artwork in an age of artificial and inescapable feedback is artist benefit - the audience is completely perceptive, the artist is completely receptive. Artists aren't even grand performers, because by the above definition ALL art today is performative - the artist is the actor, and the art piece the 'ticket of entry.' The world has become sick of these little monkey climbers and as such those who have no mouths and no desire to scream are, miraculously, smug, as the world is cleansed of total decadence in the form of 'personality display.' Anonymity is right now the only honest medium of expression, it has no pretensions about it's own worthlessness and vapidity.
Art doesn't even need to launder money - it launders the social status of vampires. It serves no purpose other than to illustrate ones increasingly redundant taste. Every artist is simply a marketer. Content creators on youtube don't realize they are fighting a trench war - they are stuck, waiting for the ordinance of the alogrithim: you don't make art, you make content. It's true. What any fleshy mouth can call art in this age is the furthest thing from self-powered creation and the closest thing to emotional whoredom.

[Anonymous No.20310313]

>>20307932
>no matter how realistic graphics look you know they aren't real
This is a strange assertion. It's obvious that once a certain threshold of realism is achieved, the average human will be unable to distinguish renders from photographs. This is already the case with films adding CGI - e.g. there's a whole scene in The Force Awakens where they retroactively edited it to add a mask to Kylo Ren, just because they decided it would work better. I'm certain that 99% of the audience (myself included) did not notice. While we are more sensitive to detecting synthesized faces, it's only a matter of time before that hurdle is overcome too. Also, giving a video game as an example is stupid because those graphics need to be generated in real-time, which is a far more difficult task.

[Anonymous No.20310676]

What's with STEM niggas and wanting to destroy humanitys soul?

[Anonymous No.20310686]

>>20306641
>seem like the kind of rebuttal you'd find on Reddit
You would know all about that, wouldn't you?

[Anonymous No.20310912]

>>20310676
Read Industrial Society and Its Future

[Anonymous No.20311080]

dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice dont panic the ai will notice

[Anonymous No.20311143]

>>20300634
I suggest you to wait a few years and ask the question to an AI rather than reading speculations by some old man.
>Pic generated by DALL-E
We'll reach the point you're talking about in 2 more weeks, but not in 202X. However, it opens infinite possibilities for shitposting. Here are samples (GPT-3 generated).
>The Literature
A name given to other people’s published papers, referred to by scientists without actually reading them.
>Speculation
One of Newton’s Laws of Science, also known as “Newton’s Law of Speculation”, which states that “Speculation breeds Confusion”, an effect well illustrated by how theoretical particle and string theorists debate scientific issues with each other. Confused? You should be. After all, you’re dealing with a bunch of theoretical physicists.
>Skynet
This ersatz god, in the form of an artificial general intelligence or AGI, is what some scientists hope to build to make themselves more precious than their subjects, to achieve their goal of making all the subjects equal to themselves; in other words, to put all the subjects into a bigger tin box to make themselves feel more important.

[Anonymous No.20311163]

>>20311143
That's not Dall-E 2 though. The difference is enormous.

[Anonymous No.20311189]

>>20307624
>PHOTOGRAPHY WILL KILL PAINTING
It did

[Anonymous No.20311219]

What are the possibilities of a fully AI generated CGI movie? How would such a project even work? What would the production pipeline look like?

Most importantly, how soon can porn artists start using these tools?

[Anonymous No.20311696]

>>20300634
You'll probably see lawsuits and regulation popping up in the future so hard to tell exactly how creative related AI tech will affect society. Even OpenAI acknowledges you shouldn't run around using DALLE-2 images in commercial works for this reason afaik. I asked some friends who are paid, professional artists what they thought about AI art since I was curious about it a few weeks ago. They were interested in its potential in their own art. So I think its true impact is hard to determine.

>>20301047
This is all true and even with 500b+ parameters like in google's PALM it is still a problem afaik.

[Anonymous No.20311820]

>>20310676
The smart ones realize that it's awful, but it'll be personally worse for them if they aren't the ones on top, as someone else will do it if they don't.

[Anonymous No.20312266]

>>20311696
>I asked some friends who are paid, professional artists what they thought about AI art since I was curious about it a few weeks ago. They were interested in its potential in their own art.
Whores.