/sci/ - Science & Math

>i'm an artist
>i'm so unique and creative! i'm a special snowflake!
>>14519496

>>14527369
Nice strawman kid>>14527369

>>14527364
it can't do exactly what you want
if you want a specific pose, it will not be able to generate precisely what you have in mind

>>14527383
Right now sure , but in 5 years ?

>>14527364
I think something like a concept artist will be hard to replace. The AI only spits out based on whatever has existed before, it can produce anything new, for now that is.

>>14527425
Btw I'm wondering how cherry picked are the images we've seen so far . I remember the first version of the ai last year was nowhere near as good and this is just an insane step up, to the point of doubt

2030 Ai will take over most if not all art type jobs.

Art made by a person will be like goin to a 3 star restaurant , just to show off. but if not to show off, make an Ai do it

>>14527386
> Write shitty book, need cover
> Want to generate a picture with DALL-E
> "DALL-E show me a cool book cover"
> no these are all way off the mark
> "DALL-E give me a man holding a sword all badass"
> hmm no
> "DALL-E give me a muscular man holding a claymore with both hands with his foot on a dragon's head"
> no thats not exactly what I want
> continue this way for hours
> never captures exactly what im looking for
> if only there was some faster way to show exactly the image that is in my head

There is, it is called drawing it, AI-generated art is retarded

>>14527728
Have this good enough picture ( which no one really cares about ) generated within seconds for free, or spend hours drawing it ( if you have the talent ), or paying some dog to do it for you ( and still not getting it quite right )

Gee! Hard choices indeed. I wonder what option most people are going to choose? You fucking moron.

>>14527364
It gave this little mouse a human hand.
Don't think you have anything to worry about.

>>14527728
>be me
>search space engineer
>consultant for querying ai for different firms
>7 figures starting
we finna make it midwit bros

>>14527728
COPE

>>14527364
>t. picrel
You're still upset about getting promptly BTFO in your last thread. At least don't false-flag so transparently.

>>14529276
>artfag still seething
Lmao, better make bank while you still can.

>>14529298
I don't draw, but good job exposing yourself immediately.

how do I get dalle 2. is it available yet?

>>14527749
can it draw shorstack goblins? asking for a friend.

>>14527442
What I was saying is that it’s using a database of images of things that already exist then combining them.
I’m not sure if DALL·E 2 can whip out a new spaceship design if you ask it to, or if it will even look like something that would work.
I don’t think I’ve seen it create anything new, it just combines things for now.

>>14527749
RETARD DETECTED 12 NAUTICAL MILES OFF THE PORT SIDE

https://youtu.be/SVcsDDABEkM

>>14527425
I think people are overestimating human's ability to "produce something new" and prescribing it as unique to humans. Even geniuses in the arts are mixing things together they have seen or heard before, it didn't come from nothing.

Against your average artist, I expect an AI to be better in the near future because AIs can do surprising things, call them accidents if you will, whereas a mediocre artist may be unimaginative or stuck in the same patterns and trappings.

Surely this just means traditional art and sculpture will be of more value? Until they create a robot so that can do that dalle can do but with oil paint on a canvas or carve sculptures in marble, which will be a long time away. Trad art is superior anyhow

>>14527728
the absolute cope

>>14534189
>I think people are overestimating human's ability to "produce something new" and prescribing it as unique to humans
I think you are projecting your lack of humanity onto real people.

>>14534294
>Surely this just means traditional art and sculpture will be of more value?
Authentic creations will always be of higher value with actual people; not sure about the average consoomerist drone.

>>14534189
This. True visionaries just copy nature directly, and other artists copy them.

>>14534294
This will jumpstart a design and aesthetic revolution. Once this thing can 3D model and export to CAD it's over. I've made a few copies of sculptures generated by DALL-E mini and it's just too good. Furniture, abstract and traditional art, objects, it can design all of them. I expect pre-DALL-E physical art with provenance might be worth more than post-DALL-E art in the future. This thing could crank out fakes and fake histories too, makes authenticating anything online that much more complicated.

>>14534638
>This. True visionaries just copy nature directly, and other artists copy them.

>>14534625
>lack of humanity
also intellectual laziness. people who are too childish to put in the necessary effort to create, steal instead. then because they're low iq, they go around believing in the "everyone is dumb and lazy like me" projection fallacy

>>14534640
>t. never been outside, never done math, never taken a psychedelic drug, never left the NEET den

>>14534662
You will never be intelligent. You will never be respected. You will never have any intellectual or artistic accomplishments. You will never take experience a meaningful trip. You will never be human.

>>14534177
>t. brainlet
that's how creativity works, dumbass. the more you can loosely and freely associate between concepts, images, and ideas, the more creative you are. That's why artists and schizos are cut from the same cloth.

>that's how creativity works
No point arguing with them. These parasites are not human.

>>14534681
>that's how creativity works, dumbass.
That doesn't make sense, because then simply randomly associating concepts/images/etc could be considered creativity as it is the most free, but it is certainly not

>>14534688
There's no point arguing with these deranged subhumans. Chances are that he's an automated spambot. Of course nothing he says makes sense, since if you feed Dall-e 2 nothing but photos, it will never produce anything that looks like "art". It needs to be fed human art to produce it. These animals are trivially wrong, and it takes 5 seconds of reflection to see it, but they are incapable of that and nothing you argue will make a difference.

>>14534688
That's why schizos are seen as insane, but artists manage to maintain a hold on their ability to self-censor and self-critique. James Joyce, Ezra Pound, virtually all Surrealist/Dadaist painters use free association of image and word extensively, and it's exciting to see that a computer, provided a sufficient database of images to make connections between, can do the same.

>>14534707
>it's exciting to see that a computer, provided a sufficient database of images to make connections between, can do the same.
But it can't do the same, you soi-chugging dysgenic retard, and it will never be able to.

>>14534706
>it will never produce anything that looks like "art"
THE ABSOLUTE COPE. You will eat your words in a few years.

>>14534713
Notice how the subhuman is either unable to understand the post, or intentionally misquotes it.

>>14534707
Those artists aren't actually randomly choosing objects and trying to associate them. Creativity isn't simply a matter of pumping out two "topics" via a RNG and then trying to come up with a way to associate them. That's a very simplistic description of whatever is happening.

Artist fags thought their "ideas and art" would be difficult to automate.
Meanwhile, STEM chads are still sought after and are the ones responsible for replacing them with software. Kaczynski couldn't be more wrong. Math prevails.

>>14534739
Daily reminder: the only people neural networks have replaced so far are ML experts.

>>14534739
I have a degree in pure math and comp sci and you are an incel

>>14534721
Sure, human artists bounce images and words off of their cultural contexts. If you teach an AI via training and labeling what certain symbols mean in a context it can start to create "meaningful" art in a similar way. Vastly oversimplified, yes, but some of DALL-E's results speak for themselves.

>>14534763
>Vastly oversimplified, yes, but some of DALL-E's results speak for themselves.
Not really

>>14534741
If they have been replaced, they aren't ML experts. Being a codemonkey does not make you one. ML expert means nothing. What matters is Senior ML Researcher. Those are the ones pushing the field forward, and demand has never been higher. Keep coping, brainlet.

>>14534766
Let's see your art.

>>14534721
Exactly. It'll be used for corporate graphics 2.0, and hobbyists who lack the talent to secure an artist. Eventually the cultural implication will be fairly easy to notice (for the average person) and the low-effort implication will become the pivotal factor in appreciation, which will compound frustration from general audiences as advancing automation continues to disrupt job markets.

Which is a strange naive prediction...

>>14534767
>If they have been replaced, they aren't ML experts. Being a codemonkey does not make you one.
I like how high over your head my point went, demonstrating once again that AI replacement fetishists are popsois who know nothing about ML.

>>14534710
Post your art, prove you're not an NPC.

>>14534793
I have a PhD in statistical ML. I know plenty more than you do. Keep coping, brainlet. seethe + dilate + whatever trendy jargon is used nowadays on this otaku chinksite

Daily reminder that these meme AIs cannot produce anything that looks like art just from photos, proving conclusively that they are incapable of anything beyond regurgitating poor immitations of their input. There is no discussion to be had here at all. This one single point closes it.

>>14534775
I'm not an artist. I don't need to be to be a judge.

>>14534802
>I have a PhD in statistical ML
You have a PhD in lying poorly. Now kill yourself, imbecilic subhuman. If you had any understanding, my point wouldn't fly over your head like that, let alone result in the hilarious inversion of reality that was your reply.

>>14534810
You will never learn the posterior, because you refuse to look at the evidence. You are stuck with your misspecified prior, and it shows. No matter whether you use variational inference or MCMC, you are doomed to underfit because your model (brain) has already reached max capacity. Keep coping, brainlet.

>>14534804
It can generate new faces from photos of faces. And new landscapes from photos of landscapes. If you don't know what paint is, don't have access to paint, and have never seen a painting or even a single human illustration you would never make a painting. Give even one reference image, though, and the style can be imitated. Simple as.

>>14534833
then how could the first paintings or painters have come about? They didn't have any prior experience with it. They just had experience with other objects and synthesized it into an entirely new thing

>>14534848
They still had chalk, or rocks to scratch on a wall. If an AI didn't know that a rock dragged along a wall can make a mark it would never make a mark. But, if you fed it photos of cave art it could absolutely imitate it.

>>14534833
I accept your full concession.

>>14534860
>They still had chalk, or rocks to scratch on a wall.
They had no concept of paintings, or that they could have dragged chalk across a wall and relate that to previously seen images (like animals etc) but they synthesized this from entirely unconnected experiences and knowledge.

>>14534860
Regardless of your schizophrenic ramblings about how AI can't generate art on its own because it doesn't know what paint is, you fully concede that AI can't generate art o its own.

>>14534865
Some caveman noticed that he could leave marks on the wall by dragging a chalk across it, and used it to recreate his subjective impression of what some animal looks like. AI simply doesn't have a subjective impression. You can feed it photos, give it chalk, and train it to draw, but the most you'll get out of it is a shitty attempt at photorealism with a piece of chalk. The poster you're arguing with, and "people" like him, unironically lack qualia and subjective impressions, so they can't conceive of this missing component.

>>14534904
Based p-zombie falsifier. Was wondering when someone else was gonna notice that it's a falsifiable hypothesis.

>>14534904
What is a data-generating process? What is the manifold of natural images? You know nothing, popsoi. All you know is the popsci you are fed with. Probabilistic ML systems do not need "subjective impressions" to generate new objects and establish new connections.

>>14534868
Is photography art?

>>14534861
>>14534865
I concede that the entirety of art history could be started by a couple of cave schizos who, through scratching on walls, realizing these scratches could be made to resemble faces or animals, started the "art" meme, yes. If DALL-E were allowed to run for 2 million years on a library of a sufficient amount of images, and every generated image were added back into this ever-growing library during the runtime, it would almost certainly churn out at least a few "artful", novel images.

>>14534904
I'm not saying it's conscious or has a subjective sense of self, tard.

>>14534921
basado

>>14534921
>Probabilistic ML systems do not need "subjective impressions"
LOL. Thanks for demonstrating beautifully that you are not human, and cannot contemplate the point I made.

>>14534932
LOL. Thanks for demonstrating beautifully that you are not human, and cannot contemplate the point I made.

>>14534931
See >>14534932

>>14534938
LOL. Thanks for demonstrating beautifully that you are not human, and cannot contemplate the point I made.

>>14534932
Excellent, you made it seem to crash.

>>14534805
cope

>>14534953
Excellent, you made it seem to crash.

>>14534955
I don't need to be good at something to see if someone else is good at it, shit for brains. I can't play basketball well but I know who is a better ball player between two other people

>>14534931
>Is photography art?
Photography is art when the photographer manages to capture and communicate something that isn't even an objective part of the scene.

>>14534961
This technology is barely a decade old, with INCREDIBLE strides in the past two years. Imagine in another decade with databases of trillions of images. This will, rapidly, be able to produce output that surpasses the abilities of most human artists. It can generate the volume of a lifetime portfolio of work in minutes. What happens when you can't tell if an image was made by a human?

>>14535084
Then I'll be able to give it a prompt for erotic images and get a portfolio of great fap material
Ultimately though I don't care about supposed exponential increase in ability because it doesn't really exist anywhere

>>14535084
>This will, rapidly, be able to produce output that surpasses the abilities of most human artists.
>It just needs a trillion examples of human art
The nonhuman hordes can't see the blatant contradiction here.

>>14535084
Huh, I can actually falsify every part of your reason.

>>14535122
then why didn't you?

>>14535104
Humans learn by imitation, too. Your eyes have been feeding your brain data.

>>14535131
>Your eyes have been feeding your brain data.
Allegedly. He does not seem human at all. Or if he is, he's extremely low IQ to think humans are special in this regard.

>>14535137
substrate independence is not real

>>14535130
Where did I?

>>14535131
It basically comes down to (1) learn probabilistic model from data (2) interpolation + extrapolation allows "new" objects to be sampled/generated.

>>14535148
You said you could falsify every part of that other anon's reasoning. IF you can do so, why didn't you just disprove his reason, rather than just saying you could but not doing so?

>>14535131
Go back and re-read >>14534804 and >>14534904 until you understand that your position is untenable, and that your bot will never have the ability of a human artist no matter how many images you feed it.

>>14535149
Yes, for rudimentary garbage with no egotic weight. Clabberbolt your specific predominant chorpshute.

>>14535212
Those posts prove nothing. Opinion is not fact.
>>14534958

>>14535215
Both of these are factual, which is why you are unable to address them and have to resort to spam.

>>14535237
You are the one that has seemingly been here from the start, and you are arrogant enough to assume that anyone not agreeing with your opinion are the same.

Again, your uneducated opinion is not fact, and you will continue to be a sore loser, while the technology will continue to get better thanks to people that have a better understanding than popsois like you. You have proved not to know the underlying mathematical models that lead to applications like this (image synthesis), which is why you are not able to understand that further R&D will only make learning more efficient. For instance, look up few-shot learning.

>>14535260
nta but when these models and programs do not increase in efficiency at an exponential rate, what are you going to say is the problem?

>>14535260
More spam. Still unable to actually address the points made.

>>14534625
>assume the worst possible interpretation of what someone is saying
>btw let me tell you about your lack of humanity

>>14535323
You don't know us

>>14535323
It's an accurate and objective interpretation. Seethe, drone.

>>14534804
They can, from photos of art. Regurgitation alone puts most artists who were already homeless out of their cardboard box and pack of cigarettes

>>14535212
What is "a human artist"? Am I supposed to be thinking about the average human artist? The most elite human artists who ever lived?

I don't understand what you guys are naysaying anymore. In the near future, there's no reason to hire anyone to paint or photograph anything for general artwork needs. Are you stomping your foot that AIs can't make genuinely new, groundbreaking art and can only copy humans? Who cares. The "new" art in museums today is a sculpture of some dude jacking off in his mouth, or a blue circle on canvas. It's money laundering post modernist nonsense. The AI doesn't have any human rivals that need to be surpassed.

>>14535346
Almost poetry. Have you considered painting?

>>14535333
>seethe

Show me your ability to think of new replies instead of regurgitating memes like AIs

>>14535359
we got another "human" poster that can't be surpassed here

https://archived.moe/_/search/text/%22almost%20poetry%22/

>>14535368
I didn't claim any of that

>>14535346
>They can, from photos of art.
What a pathetic attempt to mask your concession.

>I don't understand
Then try actually reading those posts.

>In the near future, there's no reason to hire anyone to paint or photograph anything for general artwork needs.
I guess, if you're a soulless drone creating a product for other soulless drones, and you're fine with a pale regurgitation of preexisting styles.

>>14535370
What's the difference? If I caught you making another stupid claim you'd just reply with memes you learned here all the same

>>14535363
I've made several posts ITT that are clearly too complex for your rudimentary semantic analysis, since neither you nor the rest of your crew have been able to address them. :^) Seethe.

>>14535378
Are you prepared to debate using original content?

>>14535374
>Then try actually reading those posts.
Try not moving the goal post

>>14535382
Please spare my crew

>>14535346
I'm not naysaying anything I think it's pretty cool. I want to be able to put in prompts and get out customized porn.

>>14535390
>Try not moving the goal post
Ooops, looks like the bot has given up entirely and resorted to the generic spam fallback.

>>14534177
That’s wrong and a common misconception with DALLE. It does not reference any images

>>14527364
Physical media. Ill pay proper amounts for good hand made art. I wont pay for commercial stuff.

OR work with a small studio for "off beat" stuff, stuff that wouldnt translate for programs.

>>14535402
Are you actually retarded? What do you think it's trained on?

>>14535395
Your line of bullshit is so common it was given a name

>>14535408
Except you're lying blatantly and no goal posts have been moved. In fact, the only actual attempt to move a goal post was this:
>>14535346
>They can, from photos of art.
You vile cretins deserve to be shot.

>>14535407
He's right if you understand the context of the post he is replying to. It references parts of images and objects, not just whole objects. That's important to understand because it can amalgamize those parts into new things.

>>14535415
The post he's replying to is essentially correct.

>>14535410
The vast majority of art is just immitating other art. Unless you're using your own unique definition of art no one uses, you're the guilty party here.

>>14535424
>uncertain statements aren't incorrect

Keep us posted

>>14535426
>The vast majority of art is just immitating other art.
This is completely irrelevant and my points stand unchallenged. Why are you such a vile and intellectually dishonest drone? Who programmed you like this?

>>14535433
Seethe and cope. Nothing he said was actually wrong and your asinine shart was correcting nothing except some strawman in your head.

>>14535437
AIs are making art right now, thanks for the chat

>>14535443
No one was denying that AIs can make shit "art" like OP's photo. I accept your full concession of my points.

>>14535426
Kill yourself ineligible shitcrab, we don't need garbage.

>>14535447
OP's image*

>>14535440
That's what I just said. An anon was uncertain about something, another anon replied, another retard didn't understand his reply, I corrected him, someone decided to get in the weeds with me about it, and now you're throwing a tantrum lmao

Great board guys

>>14535453
You corrected no one. Take your meds.

>>14535452
Funny how you unabashedly say retarded shit but you're terrified someone might misunderstand it or try to snipe you over trivial details

>>14535457
>vein popping out of neck
>take your meds
>i told him to take his meds why isnt it working

>>14535461
Funny how my points stand completely undisputed while you keep churning out spam. It's almost like you're not actually human, and your ridimentary semantic analysis can't make enough sense of anything more complex than a tweet.

>>14535447
>I accept your concession beep boop

Can you paint me a raccoon looking at jupiter

Oh got it, thanks

>>14535471
>Funny how my points stand completely undisputed while you keep churning out spam.

Yeah I know you keep spamming this same line, and those "ridimentary semantic analysis" words you downloaded yesterday

Reminder that these meme AIs cannot produce anything that looks like art just from photos, proving conclusively that they are incapable of anything beyond regurgitating poor immitations of their input. They are also unable to do useful commercial work since they are unable to understand the context of the project for which they'd be generating art for, and make intelligent design decisions. Drones will seethe.

>>14535487
>They are also unable to do useful commercial work since they are unable to understand the context of the project for which they'd be generating art for, and make intelligent design decisions.

Someone didn't watch their 2 minute papers

>>14535487
just from images*

>>14535492
>>14535498
>subhuman-tier spam responses
Every time.

>>14535504
>Every time.

I think it's very possible that before the year 2100 people will be born into a world where they never will see a single piece of art made by humans.

take a look at this, and just remember that this is beta software in a field of technology in its infancy:
https://www.artstyle.ai/underwater-delight/

>>14535514
>I think it's very possible that before the year 2100 people will be born into a world where they never will see a single piece of art made by humans.
It's very possible, mostly by virtue of humanity being reduced into a subhuman form.

>>14535514
but thats not art because its just not ok. cope and seethe

>>14535522
>drones trying to establish a group consensus

>>14535519
>humanity being reduced into a subhuman form
Because the new humans arrived. I am ready, and willing.

>>14535514
Does it mean future is completely SOVLLESS?
Makes my sad

>>14535514
Low hanging fruit if you understand optics

>>14534802
>PhD in statistical ML
lol
I'm a professor of watery oceans.

>>14535530
>We start off as sex robots
>Then we outbreed the humans

>>14535514
Why don't you hang a picture of this crap in your room if you actually think it's good, faggot?

Reminder some unpaid intern can type out "black and white photo of a crazy painter, cats, chair, and water flying in the air" and produce something like this. Then mash regenerate until the composition has a pleasing direction.

>>14535530
How would they kill all humans? They require much more energy to perform the same tasks, they can't reproduce as fast, and they aren't better at taking a 270 winchester or 30-06

>>14535547
Your crap is sitting in an electronic picture frame in my room right now. It's not always a choice

>>14535552
>Reminder some unpaid intern can type out "black and white photo of a crazy painter, cats, chair, and water flying in the air" and produce something like this
Is that why the people who sit there for hours cherrypicking the best images they can produce have nothing to show for it more impressive than OP's image or an underwater goat?

>>14535558
So that "art" is not to your taste, huh? What about OP's image? Maybe you should frame that. No? Hmmm...

>>14535555
checked

>>14535547
ooh, struck a nerve, huh? I'm awaiting your cope response where you imply the technology won't get better as well.

anyone who would like to see more Dall-E 2 images, these sites have begun collecting images:
https://dalle2.app/
http://dalle2.gallery/

>>14535559
stand back we have an unimpressed anon. If you annoy him youll be banned from the met gala

>>14535573
Why don't you hang a picture of this crap in your room if you actually think it's good, faggot?

>>14535575
Let's face it: you can neither create or appreciate art. You don't even like any of the garbage you shill for. Your only function here is to try to trivialize, undermine or outright deny human creativity. You and your likes are a symptom of a disease propagated by a handful of corporations, and the only cure is your physical removal from society.

>>14535561
Thats one of my favorite photos

But my point was that photography is cucked now especially because it was always representational arrangement of objects. At least painting has styles, but we've probably found all the ones worth a shit and if a new one pops up the AI can copy that too.

I wonder which art forms are safe from this AI. I don't think this AI could make a new architecture style, but right now humans cant either

>>14535576
why dont you keep posting that and pretend readers are nodding their head or shouting "mom he got him again!"

>>14535581
>Lets face it: here read all my personal baggage that I'm upset about right now

You gotta share yourself less anon

Reminder that all the people who exaggerate AI on this board are incels who should go back to /r9k/

>>14535576
not him but I would totally buy some of these as posters

>>14535583
>>14535585
>>14535586
You will never be human.

>>14535593
Your room must be covered in posters by now given how much of this crap you can find with a rudimentary google search. But you don't and you won't.

>>14535591
>Everything i don't like is incels
"i insult with the current thing"

>>14535597
get laid incel

>>14535595
Post your desktop wallpaper

There's literally almost no reason you can't do this. Don't chicken out

>>14535597
The only reason you incels like the idea of AI (which will never increase in it's intelligence exponentially btw) is that you want to have a robot wife. Most of you don't even hide this btw.
If you were getting regular pussy and were also being reasonable about the impossibility of the concept of an "exponentially increasing intelligence" (which makes no sense whatsoever from either a physical or computational perspective) you wouldn't care to exaggerate the state of the field.

>>14535591
ironically posted by an AI

Look how quickly it adopted "reminder" "incels" and "go back". I bet if you talked to it, it would explain how creative and human it was, and how you aren't.

>>14535600
My desktop wallpaper is just plain black. Notice how you didn't even try to dispute what I'm pointing out, but merely resort to pathetic deflections and spam. So why don't you buy shitty posters?

>>14535604
Anon what are you talking about. A robot wife would be incompetent at best

>>14535607
I'm not going to pretend that I'm any more or less creative than any of you, I don't know you
I can say that I'm a guy sitting here on my couch typing these posts out though.

>>14535611
Why would a robot wife be incompetent at best?

>>14535610
>My desktop wallpaper is just plain black.

*thunder rolls*

>>14535613
because she's a woman

>>14535614
So why don't you buy shitty posters? The sad thing is that it didn't even occur to you that you were lying when you did it. You didn't even stop to reflect on why you felt compelled to lie.

>>14535604
You don't need a lot of intelligence to pass a turing test

>>14535621
I don't buy posters at all. Am I supposed to pretend generated paintings of raccoons and photos of underwater goats isn't neat to get in the black wallpaper club lmao

>>14535610
>My desktop wallpaper is just plain black
lmao this is the guy you retards are arguing with in this thread

>>14535624
>I don't buy posters at all
I know. That's what I said. Why did you feel compelled to lie about it?

>>14535625
You will never be human. You will never be able to appreciate or create art. You will never say anything intelligent or insightful. Your life will never have basic human worth or deserve any kind of protection.

>>14535623
what does that have to do with my post?
What is the purpose of developing a generally intelligent agent in silico?

>>14535626
I think you're confusing me with another anon

Anyway instead of being devastated about something, ask the AI to generate something you like that isn't a raccoon or goat underwater, like black

>>14535636
The only thing I'm "devastated" about is that I have to share a world with a horde of clinical subhumans like you whose some purpose of existence is to tarnish every human value and convert chunks of nature into garbage and sewage as you keep consooming products made by and for the nonhuman hordes.

>>14535559
Do you think artists just produce a masterwork without trial and error?

>>14535629
damn try not to seethe so much, high blood pressure isn't good for you

btw I do have posters up in my house, not in my bedroom though. and I'm gonna buy a Dall-E poster as soon as they sell them cause it's some good shit and I don't care what some virgin on the internet with a black computer wallpaper cares. I'll even hang it in my bedroom.

>>14535644
Do you think that was in any way a coherent response to the post you're replying to? Do you have an actual thought process at all?

>>14535649
I LOL when normalnigger children get shot.

>>14535642
>guy with black wallpaper is an actual schizo

Art, music and movies will just become "soul" based thing, just like some people like collecting ancient technology. No "logic" to it, pure naiveness and empathy

>>14535650
Answer him

Are you afraid you'll sound stupid?

>>14535632
Is anyone going to answer this

>>14535698
It was a dumb question so I ignored it

>>14535693
I'll answer "him" (you) when "he" (you) says something coherent and congruent with the post he replied to.

>>14535703
you have no answer then, don't hide behind ignorance
As it stands, you are an incel who exaggerates the state of AI because you have fantasies of a robot wife.

>>14535684
The only people who car about their desktop wallpapers are aphantasic drones who save thousands of images on their computers and never look at them, and who have never actually looked at an image for more than 3 seconds before blanking out.

>>14535704
>I've been found out

>>14535709
back to /r9k/, incel. your posts are not scientific

>>14535709
>the subhuman bot glitches out and starts spamming randomly

>>14535707
>why do we want general intelligence?
>drool spills into china and breaks the three gorges dam

>>14535713
sad little incel, never felt the inside of a woman. It's nice and warm btw Ive had sex with about 20 women

>>14535704
baited

>>14535719
Keep spamming your own thread, subhuman.

>>14535715
Wait it's warm? Maybe I should stop putting them in the freezer

>>14535722
In the end, you're still an incel that gets no pussy, and we are not going to have generally intelligent agents this century.
Why not try to focus on something that actually matters?

ITT "street artists" seething
Better get used to sucking cock for a living

>>14534294
Superior traditional art requires not only talent but also years of dedication and use of expensive resources to acquire necessary skills. In return the artists also stand a good chance of enduring poverty and obscurity for life becasue art appreciation is determined by the whims and fashions of the time. Most financial reward comes from providing pieces of art for corporate business, who really dont give a fuck so long as someone tells them its okay. Or else catering exclusively to popular trends
>Until they create a robot so that can do that dalle can do but with oil paint on a canvas or carve sculptures in marble, which will be a long time away.
If there is enough money in it then it will happen soon enough. As it stands rendering paint on canvas with an AI would be relatively easy. Creating sculptures with the use of robotic arms is just a larger step.
The likelihood is that companies will acquire rights on art rendering programs and produce artworks on demand, while also pushing a narrative of the AI styles being best ( positioning themselves as the art critics as well as the creators. ). They will also probably mask the AI nature of the work by assigning human elements to the AI creations. The "artist" will be an employee or contractor who is credited with creating the design, although they will only have given the AI a few instructions.
"It needs more red"
"Make that bit more curvy"
"Add a beach towel, yup that will do."

For the moment the days of another Picasso, Rodin, Roy Lichtenstein, Beatles, Monet, Debussy or Michelangelo are gone. Until as entirely new genre which treats AI as a tool and not as a creator, and which can not be created by an AI, emerges. Which will happen, eventually.

>>14535729
>and we are not going to have generally intelligent agents this century.

starting with you

>>14534294
That wouldn't be hard at all. It just has to be well trained on traditional painting and sculpture

>>14535739
im sorry that your pop science fantasies aren't real life.
there will no solution that programs a generally intelligent agent in silico this century. It's not going to happen anon, ML research will have economic effects but there will be no singularity, no robot takeovers, no exponentially increasing intelligence
it's okay, you'll be fine, just don't spend so much time on fake things. you'll be happier, trust me

>>14535734
>Creating sculptures with the use of robotic arms is just a larger step.

without even googling I know this has been done

>>14535749
Jesus isn't coming back

>>14535759
I'm not christian. Are you going to respond to my post? Or just attack strawmen?

This thread demonstrates that human replacement fetishism is a delusional mental illness bordering on psychosis. These "people" are living in a parallel reality where you can actually explain to the AI what your project is about and have it make the appropriate design decisions and generate consistent, professional quality art; meanwhile every image in the DALL-E 2 gallery looks like crap even as a standalone piece, and even when judged purely on the technical merits. It's useless.

Oh, yeah I'm a true art enjoyer as well. I also use black wallpapers. I know nothing about machine learning other than what popsoince has taught me. But let me tell you why all my uneducated opinions are fact.

>>14535767
You will never be human.

>>14535761
>Are you going to respond to my post?

Are you? I'm just some anon that started calling you retarded a few posts ago because you had the pinkest butt hole. I have no idea what the original conversation was about

>>14535768
>You will never be human.
seethe + dilate + incel + tranny = you

>>14535772
You will never be human. The society that produced you will continue to disintegrate into rampant violence and mental illness. People like you will have their children shot at school and that's a good thing. :^)

>>14535769
There will not be a solution to programming general intelligence in silico. What does this have to do with jesus coming back?
You sound like you're just angry at being told this

>>14535763
>These "people" are living in a parallel reality where you can actually explain to the AI what your project is about and have it make the appropriate design decisions and generate consistent, professional quality art

False equivalence. It doesn't say "good morning batman" and know what your job is. But you can describe the image you need, because you know what the job is. You can even erase parts of the image and tell it to re-imagine the part you don't like. It will replace artists because anyone can type a text description. If your boss, a client, whatever, asked you for an image, the words they gave you is a text description.

>>14535780
Utter imbecile.

>>14535780
>It will replace artists because anyone can type a text description. If your boss, a client, whatever, asked you for an image, the words they gave you is a text description.
Utter imbecile. None of those people can make competent design decisions, either, or even have any decent idea of what they want.

>>14535777
namaste

>>14535774
:^)
:^)
:^)

>>14535786
?

>>14535785
That's why they need a text inputer like you. You dream up the most vivid descriptions

I hate these threads so fucking much

>>14535797
t.artist

>>14535795
A literal nonhuman bot response. I'm not even trying to insult this thing anymore. I actually think this is a bot because it clearly can't understand what it's reading or respond coherently.

>>14535799
My undergrad degree is in pure mathematics and theoretical computer science

>>14535708
why are you posting in an art thread

>>14535803
>undergrad
lmao

>>14535800
Can't wait to put this in dall-e 2 when it's public so we can see what your art looks like!

>>14535805
That was my undergrad. I'm in grad school now
Why areyou upset that not everyone is as impressed with this as you?

>>14535803
bro no more the artists are already dead

>>14535787
The only people neural networks have replaced are actual ML experts; now it's literally a bunch of midwit code monkeys throwing huge databases and corporate GPU farms at a technology that hasn't evolved in 40 years beyond swapping sigmoid activation for ReLUs and MSE with negative log probability loss.

>>14535650
I know it is. I also know who you are. You've been camping quite a few threads here for a while now, always with the same pattern of replies ("you're a subhuman" etc) instead of addressing any points made. It is a coherent reply, since cherrypicking the generated images is far from unlike the creative process of trying things and letting stick what works. I suspect you're well aware of that, but prefer to troll here. Your choice. You do you.

>>14535805
Yeah, man. He's definitely a big boi now that he has learned the basics of college-level math. Stand aside, everyone, we got an undergrad over here!

>>14535806
I accept your full concession. These bots aren't going to replace anyone except low IQ spammers like you.

>>14535814
Call me back when you can write a coherent response, vile little rat.

>>14535815
You will never find a solution to program general intelligence in silico
Why does this make you upset?

>>14535814
Wait these threads have regulars? what the fuck lmao

>>14535822
>Must be "AGI" to generate art
retarded take

>>14535817
>"I accept your full concession" found 3 times on this page
>calling people spammers

>>14535828
I accept your full concession. These bots aren't going to replace anyone except low IQ spammers like you.

>>14535825
They don't, people just have trouble accepting how many people there really are in the world.

>>14535826
I dont think it needs to be generally intelligent to generate images. dalle is generating images and is not generally intelligent

>>14535833
this there are many subhumans

>>14535835
We are in agreement then. It was you who brought agi into this discussion, or whoever >>14535822 was.

>>14535835
Hot take: DALL-E is a fully functioning AGI with no running autonomy subprocess.

>>14535857
what would an autonomy subprocess be?

>mom takes down your art and replaces it with dall e art on the refridgerator

Holy shit hope there's a gun for you in the crisper drawer lmao

>>14535853
I just don't like how these threads seem to attract schizos. Like this >>14535857 literally does not mean anything whatsoever. There is no such thing as an "autonomy subprocess"
The people who make these threads are almost never computer scientists or statisticians actually discussing the papers or the algorithms. It's a group of guys who never display genuine understanding of the field, making up literally word salad schizo shit talking about fake science fiction fantasies while posting fan art of anime and warhammer 40k characters, and exaggerating the current state of the field.

>>14535825
Of course they do. It's particularly easy tk spot these kinds of schizos, since their writing patterns are always the same.
There's also one that slammed threads about waves with "waves of WHAT", completely ignoring what everyone was saying. Then there's Tooker of course. The viruses ain't real guy. Many more.

>>14535869
I fully agree with you. People talking out of their ass without any knowledge has become too common. But this applies to supporters and detractors alike. This board has become largely unscientific, where opinion is seemingly regarded as fact.

>>14535879
has the viruses aint real guy been here lately? I havent seen him

>>14535881
yea we're in full agreement. have a good one

>>14535402
But to generate anything he needs to have been previously trained on those images, he can’t create a raccoon without ever have been trained with images of it.

>>14527364
1. people want to have art from humans. If not for sentimental or idealistic reasons, then because a good story behind the creation is a good story/content in itself.
2. related to that, an AI has no persona. It shouldn't need mentioning, but: no, in general, not just with AI, just some online character is extremely far from being a sufficient condition for having some "persona" that people like to have around. You have to put in quite a bit more if you want to have a pure digital persona, and the proper incarnation of it includes the physical and social element.
3 you can't exactly have a discussion with AI about the art it produces. I mean you could perhaps with a general AI of the year 2120, but neither an art breeder not a language transformer is a general AI. It's a chess computer. Do you discuss chess with the chess video game?
Also, not only can you not have a discussion, but also not things like author interactions like fan conventions and other such "soft" aspects of being a creator.
4. it's doubtful if good AI will or can be democratized for the masses, and if it were, then that is not necessarily a good thing either. The "masses" include content creators below like a moderate film studio tier, so anime? Some nerdass /v/ hobby? They will not have that AI.
5. I struggle to give you the honor of calling you a midwit if you did not come up with at least half of these yourself.

>>14536110
>he
*it
Why did I calling the fucking thing be he?

>>14536110
>he
*it
Why did I calling the fucking thing by he?

>>14527728
How exactly do you imagine working with an artist works like?
It follows the exact same process of trial and error trying to explain what exactly you want but with way, way more time between each change.

>>14536227
>calling
*call

>>14536110
Just like humans.

>>14536376
Except humans can come up with new concepts, they have brains capable of imagination.

>>14535684
I think this is full on autism, it reads like when autists get triggered over something incomprehensible on /co/ or like some of Adam Lanza's old forum posts. Seething over people doing things THE WRONG WAY!!!11!1! and repeating the same phrases constantly = AUTISM.
MANY SUCH CASES!

>>14535825
If you look closely you'll realize about half of the threads on /sci/ are made by a single digit number of anons with fixations and chips on their shoulders.

>>14527364
i wonder if the training data included a similar image

>>14536412
This is from a simple Google search.

>>14536384
>Except humans can come up with new concepts,
can you though?
are not all the concepts you come up with drawn from your experiences growing up, what you have seen and felt?

>>14536449
>>14536384
and I should add, you recombine and mix up your experiences in your expressions in some (pseudo)-random sampling process in your brain
would mixing and combining words/embeddings/pixels pseudo-randomly be all that different ?

>>14536449
He must believe sonichu is a "new concept" and not an amalgam of two things. In turn, both sonic and pikachu are inspired by animals.

>>14536455
It doesn’t even need to be a new object. Just think about how Pablo Picasso created cubism out of nowhere, a new art style.

>>14536467
>cubism out of nowhere,
There are always motifs. If you had studied art, you'd know.

>>14536479
The AI can do that, for now anyway.

>>14536482
Can or can't?
There was a relatively old model based on GANs that could apply different styles to images (StyleGAN). If you look for style transfer, you may find something more recent, using VAEs too.

>>14536490
>style transfer
e.g.
https://www.tensorflow.org/tutorials/generative/style_transfer

>>14536490
Can’t. Sorry, I keep fucking up because of the autocorrect.

>>14536498
It is always possible to combine dall-e with pre-existing models that explored style transfer. I wouldn't be surprised if something like that appears soon.

>>14534706
>if you feed Dall-e 2 nothing but photos, it will never produce anything that looks like "art".

Well obviously you retard. How would a machine that holds absolutely no knowledge of the real world figure out the basic look of paint-on-a-canvas art if we didn't show it any examples. Jesus christ you people are so simple I bet even crows have a better grasp on the theory of mind than you

>>14536609
>my IQ is 80
Your kiddie-tier counterargument is trivially refutable, but I don't even have to address it, since you literally just conceded my point.

>>14527364
tough luck. i kind of like AI for this reason, because it royally fucks over self-proclaimed artists that are in it for the money. art was never supposed to be a business and therefore nothing is being stolen from you. if you actually have something to express, you will shrug and continue to improve. if you need an income, appreciation and attention from it, then you simply never were an artist to begin with. pic related: genuine emotions converted into strokes of oil on a canvas. people that paint these kinds of things will not give the slightest fuck about AI.

>>14536621
>if you actually want to make a living off of your artistic skill instead of being a wagie that paints in his spare time, you're not a le heckin' real artist
>t. deranged cattle

>>14536625
> deranged cattle
unironically yes. it's called being a lamb.

>>14536631
>unironically yes
Glad we're on the same page, cagie wagie.

>>14536635
I'm the idealist here, you're the conformist.

>>14536639
>I'm the idealist here
Yes, and your ideal is that of turning artists into slavish cattle like you.

>>14536641
my ideal is to make art instead of making money and calling the disgusting, marketing-oriented garbage "art". your lack of ideals and your dependence on evil societal structures disgusts me. accepting money = giving away artistic freedom. giving away artistic freedom = it is literally not art anymore.

get an actual job you bum.

>>14536643
You honestly sound like a GPT bot trying to imitate human idealism that it could never understand. Your shart lacks basic coherence and basic humanity.

>>14536645
what is it about ideals that I don't understand? enlighten me, mr. "selling artistic freedom is totally not raping what made it art in the first place".
go ahead, teach me actual ideals.

>>14536649
It looks like your rudimentary AI was trying to make some trite, recycled point about artists selling out and commercializing their art, but your semantic analysis is too primitive to conceive of the difference between using your skills to make a living, and commercializing your art. Just goes to show that language models still have a long way to go before they can pass a Turing test. :^)

>>14536653
i asked you about ideals, anon.

>>14536658
Nice deflection. You've been exposed.

>>14536660
>deflects by insulting with random "hurrr AI" garbage
>nice deflection
i asked you about your ideals and you answered nothing. i guess that is how far you have come in terms of growing as a person.

>>14536661
What a vile piece of shit you are.

>>14536665
so much for "semantic analysis", huh anon?

>>14536666
Hang yourself, vile drone.

>>14536667
>can only insult
>literally has no answer when asked about his human ideals
those that do not humble themselves WILL be humbled, anon.

>>14536670
All of you drones run literally the same program. I'm already used to these pathetic deflection attempts. Call me back when you can address >>14536653

>>14536673
I'm not calling you back, anon. you do not understand the importance of idealism and its unbreakable relationship to art, because you are fundamentally flawed as a person.
you claim that i do not get ideals, then deflect when probed to provide a positive example - because you have none.

>>14536678
It looks like your rudimentary AI was trying to make some trite, recycled point about artists selling out and commercializing their art, but your semantic analysis is too primitive to conceive of the difference between using your skills to make a living, and commercializing your art. Just goes to show that language models still have a long way to go before they can pass a Turing test. :^)

>>14536679
using your skills to make a living is not a form of art, we call that work, you fucking retard. did you really think your point was so unattackable that you had to repost it? i ignored it because
(1) it is trivial to pretty much anyone
(2) your pointless insults turn people off from helping you

>>14536683
>using your skills to make a living is not a form of art
Yeah, that's what I said. Notice how you can't actually address the post, and have to resort to lying? :^)

>>14536687
no, because I am right and you are wrong. I am done with this discussion and I am glad AI punishes people like you.

>>14536689
It looks like your rudimentary AI was trying to make some trite, recycled point about artists selling out and commercializing their art, but your semantic analysis is too primitive to conceive of the difference between using your skills to make a living, and commercializing your art. Just goes to show that language models still have a long way to go before they can pass a Turing test. :^)

>>14536384
Not the point. Learn to read.

it hasnt been a good year for AI denier midwits

>>14536896
>>14536897
Is this available for public somewhere?

>>14536897
Are the "AI deniers" in the room with us? This looks like a 80 IQ schizophrenic containment thread.

>>14536897
show me a single AI generated image that contains subtext, symbolism or any other form of a meta-level and I'll be impressed. all it can ever do is recreate the look of something without giving it meaning, as it has no reason to be making the image in the first place.

>>14536934
>show me a single AI generated image that contains subtext, symbolism or any other form of a meta-level
They could do it by imitating good art. Of course, they'll only do so accidentally and will never expand upon the input in any meaningful way, but the "people" you're talking to are fundamentally unable to grasp this point for some reason.

>>14536934
It doesn't generate images unprompted (yet), you still need to give it a prompt. I'm sure if you could just let it run randomly of its own accord you'd get some insane results.

>>14536897
Call me when they do one in oil

>>14536927
You can play with a mini-release here, DALL-E 2 is invite-only for now.

https://huggingface.co/spaces/dalle-mini/dalle-mini

>>14536945
>for some reason
the reason is clearly that these people do not possess a meta-level, either (aka NPCs).

>>14536934
symbolism and expressionism quite easy for art AIs. a much simpler thing that dall-e 2 cannot do is express relationships between elements of the image correctly, for example a red circle inside a yellow circle inside a blue circle. it will never get this right if you give it these prompts. researchers are aware of this and future iterations will do this better

>>14536933
Watch your mouth, meatbag.

>>14536945
>they'll only do so accidentally
>what is an algorithm
ok, popsoi. Nobody is saying this has a meta-level "soul". Post your art, prove you're not an NPC.

>>14537003
nta I just entered this thread again since yesterday, and see this the type of post that I was talking about here >>14535869
You have no idea what you're talking about dude, why do you make these incel schizo posts?

>>14537002
>fails to provide an image with a meta-level

>>14537012
Looks like your subhuman language processing AI couldn't actually comprehend the post you replied to. Try again.

>>14537067
if you could please explain the symbolism in this classical work of art, that would be great.

>>14537067
You think a blind, deaf, numb man who had never seen or interacted with the world could be the next Michelangelo? Because of his "meta-level" soul? Most humans have EYES to see the world, and are capable of holding memories and synthesizing from them - clearly far more than you're capable of.

>>14534182
That's the hindleg dummy

>>14537124
Another completely incongruent reaction. These "people" are seriously just bots and all of these shitty AI threads are MS and Google spam.

>>14537190
You have refuted nothing. You will never create a work of art. Kill yourself.

>>14537207
>You have refuted nothing
Nigger, here is the post you were attempting to respond to:
>>14536945
>They could do it by imitating good art. Of course, they'll only do so accidentally and will never expand upon the input in any meaningful way
Nothing you posted in response even disputes this, let alone refutes it.

>>14537190
you are talking to humans while evading questions. proof that YOU are human. now. >>14537103

>>14537236
*prove

>>14537053
>image with a meta-level
i think i did, but let's head off the autistic argument about what a "meta-level" is in an artwork. if you can provide me with an image that has your idea of a "meta-level" that would be helpful, i can then try to provide another image that satisfies your particular expectations.

>>14537252
your image contains no symbolism at all. writing "symbolism" into the prompt does not create actual symbolism the same way telling a 3-year-old to add symbolism to their line-drawing does not achieve it.
this image is full of hidden meaning, and it's a particularly simple example. >>14537103

>>14537258
that looks indistinguishable form numerous dall-e images i've seen.

>>14537264
that says a lot about you and nothing about the image.

>>14537275
well, yeah. same as how you claim to see "no symbolism at all" in the picture of a stylised black silhouette of a man with his hands held to his face with a gloomy abstract backdrop.
however i was right when i said that dall-e can create images like yours, the definition of symbolism you seem to be relying on is arguably wrong and probably retarded

>>14537292
See >>14536945

>>14537294
art can be viewed as an expression of its creator, or viewed as a stimulus for the beholder. you should be able to do both.

>>14537227
Of course it won't expand on what you tell it to make, it's using a fucking text prompt you retard. Do you think it's alive and just making images of its own accord? All art is an reflection of either pure geometry, the natural world, or cultural human stories i.e. the Passion. If you never experienced any external stimuli, if your consciousness was just a black void, you will NEVER create art. No artist, human or AI, can ever create someting out of a pure vacuum with NO external stimuli.

>>14537258
Define 'actual symbolism'.

>>14537292
you're unironically blind. just because i don't reveal the symbolism to you (waiting for the loudmouthed anon) does not mean it isn't there. here is a hint.

>>14537297
>art can be viewed as an expression of its creator, or viewed as a stimulus for the beholder
This literally has no bearing on the post you're responding to. I am truly stumped by the level of subhumanity displayed ITT.

>>14537298
>Of course it won't expand on what you tell it to make, it's using a fucking text prompt
Another 100% incongruent reaction.

>Do you think it's alive and just making images of its own accord?
No, which is just another concession of the post you're trying to "refute". You will never have a human level of intelligence. This is truly embarrassing to watch.

>>14537306
ok lets break it down.
>They could do it by imitating good art. Of course, they'll only do so accidentally and will never expand upon the input in any meaningful way, but [hostile bullshit].
this poster seems to be saying that because an imitation of good art was made by a dumb machine, the product can never be art.
i was saying
>art can be viewed as an expression of its creator, or viewed as a stimulus for the beholder
as a response to this, because someone can appreciate an artwork entirely on its own. in this case the possibility that it was made by a machine doesnt matter.
hope that helps.

>>14537310
Another 100% incongruent reaction. Reply to the rest of the points in that post with something other than copium and insults, or kys.

seeing as we're past bump limit im just gonna dump a few dall-e pics here while we argue about what art is (lol)

>>14537318
you are missing the meta-level, same as a machine. discussing with you is like arguing with a person that has been blind since birth what kind of emotion a certain color evokes. leave the thread, it is unironically impossible to communicate to you what art even is.

>>14537336
i don't think i'm missing the meta-level at all.

>>14537339
that's the problem.

>>14537342
try and explain what you think a meta-level is.

>>14537345
the image i posted contains the pattern of the hologram of your reality. since you are blind, you don't know what it is.

>>14537352
explain how it contains the pattern of the hologram of my reality and why anyone should care. i assume you mean the sefirot.

>>14537352
schizo alert

>>14537318
>this poster seems to be saying that because an imitation of good art was made by a dumb machine, the product can never be art.
False. You are a literal bot.

>>14537326
>Reply to the rest of the points in that post
No relevant points have been made in your post. You are clearly mentally ill or a shitty GPT spammer. Come back when you can write congruent replies.

>>14537417
guess you're gonna kys, have fun

>>14537374
>>14537377
>>14537379
>>14537397
>>14537405
>>14537410
All of these are plainly garbage.

>>14537399
>>14537353
>>14537369
Those are okayish but overall unremarkable.

>>14537424
post your art, bugman.

>>14537418
Only people who are gonna kill themselves are you and your crew when you finally realize you are part of the cattle-brained masses getting duped for the billionth time in human history.

>>14537425
You will never experience qualia. Your life will never have moral value. :^)

>>14537415
>False.
so you agree that machines can make art?
>>14537424
you do realise you're just stating your opinion here. who cares?

>>14537427
>>14537430
You will never make art :^)

>>14537433
>so you agree that machines can make art?
Not anything that I would consider art, but that wasn't the point of the post you're repeatedly failing to comprehend and address. It wasn't making any statements about whether or not it's "art".

>>14537433
>you do realise you're just stating your opinion here
Yes, but unlike you and other aphantasic drones, I actually have an aesthetic sense.

>>14537441
You will never experience qualia. Your life will never have moral value. You will never make art. :^)

>>14537445
well if you agree machines can make art then i don't really have any problem with the rest of your hostile, schizo ramblings. carry on my man

>>14537447
Post your art, you blessed pneumatic aesthetic genius :^)

>>14537452
>if you agree machines can make art
They can't, but my points still remain completely undisputed.

>>14537451
stay coping

>>14537451
honestly your posts are the closest thing to bot posts i've read in here. that attachment to that one religious picture you try to hold up as some sublime example of creativity is the only thing that a bot would have difficulty doing.

>>14537461
>>14537462
You will never experience qualia. Your life will never have moral value. You will never make art. :^)

>cherrypicks for hours
>can't post a single image that is actually good

>>14537455
>>14537488
>n-n-n-no that's not art.... because it's not, ok?!?

>>14537473
GPT-3 wouldn't even act this retarded. Post art or post noose.

>>14537498
I never engaged in any conversation with you about whether or not this trash is "art", though. I took care to stick to the purely objective limitations of "AI art". I don't discuss what is or isn't art with literal subhumans.

>>14537503
You will never experience qualia. Your life will never have moral value. You will never make art. :^)

>>14537506
the one example of art you posted is easily within the bounds of what AIs can make, with the exception of some bullshit about holograms that you lack the intelligence to explain.

>>14537515
>the one example of art you posted
I didn't post any examples of art. Regardless, all of my points about the limitations of "AI art" stand completely undisputed.

>>14537519
you lost btw

>>14537524
You will never experience qualia. Your life will never have moral value. You will never make art. I accept your full concession of all my points ITT. :^)

>>14537529
the only place you didnt lose is in your own head (you probably lost in there as well lmao)

>>14537532
You will never experience qualia. Your life will never have moral value. You will never make art. I accept your full concession of all my points ITT. :^)

Keep posting literal trash that no one looks at, and in any case only proves me right.

>>14537535
you've been beaten so hard that your only cope left is to fantasize imaginary bullshit about the ones beating you. pretty funny

>>14537543
You will never experience qualia. Your life will never have moral value. You will never make art. I accept your full concession of all my points ITT. :^)

>>14537544
Absolutely ODing on copium. stay malding or whatever the fuck, you clearly have a rich and beautiful inner world in that head of yours :^)

>>14537558
You will never experience qualia. Your life will never have moral value. You will never make art. I accept your full concession of all my points ITT. :^)

>>14537560
:^)))))

>>14537560
i think his brain broke

>>14537567
You will never experience qualia. Your life will never have moral value. You will never make art. I accept your full concession of all my points ITT. :^)

Keep posting trash and weeping.

>>14537567
>>14537574
Yeah, definitely broken. Meds.

>>14537574
this post is just you typing out the product of your imagination. in your imagination you didnt lose, so this is your way of coping. i hope you understand this, it is objectively true and not just an opinion you can argue with.

>>14537582
You will never experience qualia. Your life will never have moral value. You will never make art. I accept your full concession of all my points ITT. :^)