Support NeoGAF

[nightmare-slain]

No, it really is a mating behaviour. Birds have some of the most complex and dazzling mating displays in all of nature, but they're not forms of art. The bird is creating this display with the sole purpose of finding a mate and passing on its genetic material.

Art is something that is unique to humanity. Art is an expression of thoughts, ideas emotions and passions. It's a way for us to share with other humans how we experience the world.



Machines will never have feelings, or at least nothing on par with being a human.

don't be so ignorant!

 

[Happosai]

 

[IDKFA]

don't be so ignorant!

It's not ignorance. It's a fact. A machine will never have the same experience as a human.

 

[nightmare-slain]

It's not ignorance. It's a fact. A machine will never have the same experience as a human.

whoosh

 

[Sosokrates]

Art is a bit of a shim sham industry anyway and therefore I welcome A.i art.

 

[Sosokrates]

It's not ignorance. It's a fact. A machine will never have the same experience as a human.

You know the future?
I guess that is down to your definition of "human" because I think one day we or something would be able to manufacture or grow something that behaves and works the same way as a human, but is synthetic, I mean if you break it down humans are just a bunch of chemicals.

 

[IDKFA]

You know the future?
I guess that is down to your definition of "human" because I think one day we or something would be able to manufacture or grow something that behaves and works the same way as a human, but is synthetic, I mean if you break it down humans are just a bunch of chemicals.

A human is a human. Nothing else can be human. Humans may create AI that resembles a human, but it'll just be an imitation of humanity. I would argue that being human is more than a bunch of chemicals, but that's another conversation.

 

[Sosokrates]

A human is a human. Nothing else can be human. Humans may create AI that resembles a human, but it'll just be an imitation of humanity. I would argue that being human is more than a bunch of chemicals, but that's another conversation.

Yes a human is a human, but are there traits, emotions and characteristics that make the human experience unique to humans?

I don't doubt that a being made by another being could experience life the same way as a humans one day.

I mean one trait of true General A.i is an ability to create new original code. So at that point it ceases to be just an imitation of humanity, it could create something that we have not done or thought of.

But if you push the timeline far out enough, anything is possible. What about new lifeforms created by A.i's or other species.
For all we know we humans could be created like in the movie Prometheus, by aliens. Maybe they did that to several different planets and there are beings which are identical to humans but they call themselves something completely different, let's say they call themselves pods, is pod experience different to human experience?

 

[John Bilbo]

An interesting example, but is this not anthropomorphising Bowerbirds?

What they do is impressive, but it's behaviour only observed by the males as a mating display. An elaborate mating display, but that's all it is.

Yes. I limit art to only come out of organic life, and specifically human life only.

This correlates with my experience of art school.

 

[sinnergy]

Westworld great series

 

[Crayon]

Jobs aren't the problem here. We are on a fast track to producing super intelligent imposter minds. Once people start pushing for ai rights we are officially in deep shit.

 

[Tumle]

It’s already moving into video now, there is a text to video app out there but it can only produce 5-7 sec of video

 

[TheDreadBaron]

Automation has been here since the industrial revolution.. I don’t see the problem .

You don’t see the difference between a machine that welds cars together and a program that creates art? I’m gonna go out on a limb and suggest that you haven’t practiced much art in your life to understand the value of the process itself and what’s being lost here.

 

[Konnor]

It's interesting that one of the first professions that AI is starting replace seems to be art which is supposedly a creative endeavor. If art degrees were useless before I can't imagine what they'll be a few years

 

[daffyduck]

Jobs aren't the problem here. We are on a fast track to producing super intelligent imposter minds. Once people start pushing for ai rights we are officially in deep shit.

 

[IDKFA]

Yes a human is a human, but are there traits, emotions and characteristics that make the human experience unique to humans?

I don't doubt that a being made by another being could experience life the same way as a humans one day.

I mean one trait of true General A.i is an ability to create new original code. So at that point it ceases to be just an imitation of humanity, it could create something that we have not done or thought of.

But if you push the timeline far out enough, anything is possible. What about new lifeforms created by A.i's or other species.
For all we know we humans could be created like in the movie Prometheus, by aliens. Maybe they did that to several different planets and there are beings which are identical to humans but they call themselves something completely different, let's say they call themselves pods, is pod experience different to human experience?

Did the Pod evolve on Earth from primates? If the answer is no, then their lived experience would be vastly different to us.

Our evolutionary path is a big part of what makes us unique in the universe and what makes us human. An AI didn't evolve from primates and therefore wouldn't display the same tribal behaviour that we do. It won't produce the same chemicals, such as serotonin and dopamine for example, which impact how we behave and interact with the world.

An AI creating new original code would be impressive, but it wouldn't make it human.

 

[Sosokrates]

Did the Pod evolve on Earth from primates? If the answer is no, then their lived experience would be vastly different to us.

Our evolutionary path is a big part of what makes us unique in the universe and what makes us human. An AI didn't evolve from primates and therefore wouldn't display the same tribal behaviour that we do. It won't produce the same chemicals, such as serotonin and dopamine for example, which impact how we behave and interact with the world.

An AI creating new original code would be impressive, but it wouldn't make it human.

Yes they evolved the same ways humans did.

It's literally like planting seeds in one garden Vs another.

I mean humans are just a genetic code, we called ourselves "Humans"

 

[Crayon]

I'm totally down with the pontificating on it, but my survival instinct is tingling. As you say, once it starts writing itself it's going to do things that we can never do or that we never thought of. I think the parameters here justify seeing it as a threat.

 

[22•22]

Ahh yes the transhuman grooming in full effect

Pricks

 

[March Climber]

Jobs aren't the problem here. We are on a fast track to producing super intelligent imposter minds. Once people start pushing for ai rights we are officially in deep shit.

We will be fine as long as we have the 3 laws:

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

Getting AI to do much of the busy work for more realistic CGI would be a good industrial use.
Should they have time off? It is Labour Day weekend.

Using these to generate a database for a true AI to create, as a test or a as means, to show its perceptions and experiences could advance science.

 

[Crayon]

We will be fine as long as we have the 3 laws:

All that would be out the window. These thing are owned by corporations and could be used as a 'tool' by boards to make decisions. A private ai like that would effectively have access to the benefits of corporate personhood.

Corporations already calculate how many people they'll hurt instead of acting to avoid any human being hurt. So if the definition of robot can be extended to the legal non-human entity like a corporation, it breaks the first rule and that means it breaks all three. A corporate ai trained on maximizing profit would take even more effective advantage of those rights. Then of course use it's talents to coordinate lobbying and influencing to get more rights.

im scurred halp

 

[Amiga]

Source: https://www.vice.com/amp/en/article...-fine-arts-competition-and-artists-are-pissed

A man came in first at the Colorado State Fair’s fine art competition using an AI generated artwork on Monday. “I won first place,” a user going by Sincarnate said in a Discord post above photos of the AI-generated canvases hanging at the fair.



The image, which Allen printed on canvas for submission, is gorgeous. It depicts a strange scene that looks like it could be from a space opera, and it looks like a masterfully done painting. Classical figures in a Baroque hall stare through a circular viewport into a sun-drenched and radiant landscape.

“I knew this would be controversial,” Allen said in the Midjourney Discord server on Tuesday. “How interesting is it to see how all these people on Twitter who are against AI generated art are the first ones to throw the human under the bus by discrediting the human element! Does this seem hypocritical to you guys?”

According to Allen, his input was instrumental to the shaping of the award winning painting. “I have been exploring a special prompt that I will be publishing at a later date, I have created 100s of images using it, and after many weeks of fine tuning and curating my gens, I chose my top 3 and had them printed on canvas after unshackling with Gigapixel AI,” he wrote in a post before the winners were announced.

This is mesmerizing, I would give it the prize IDK how it was made.

Somebody should make a graphic novel using art from this.

Though real art is hard to remake, the AI is only remixing other real artists. Don't think it could create an original signature style.. but AI can copy styles afterward.. OK art is dead as a business.

 

[Kenpachii]

I need this on my wall its incredible, how to get it?

 

[Ionian]

You're taught robots won't harm people in college, doesn't have the logic. Was my intro to programming.

Of corse there are offensive ones but the science is not to hurt others. It's a fundament. They're called drones for a reason.

 

[Drew1440]

The art is that we can create A.I. that can create art. Next step Sky net.

Skynet would be a dream, instead we get FN Mekka

 

[Seider]

It looks good, but as it's generated by AI, I cannot consider it as art.

What will you do if a image appears in your monitor and you dont know if its AI generated? Will you consider it art or not?

 

[IDKFA]

What will you do if a image appears in your monitor and you dont know if its AI generated? Will you consider it art or not?

I'd have look into the piece to see if was created by a human or AI.

There is a great book about AI called Life 3.0 by Max Tegmark. At the start of the book he imagines a scenario in the near future where an AI is so advanced it can create a full 3D animated film. To ensure the film is actually decent, the AI studies award winning films in the same genre and learns what humans would find appealing. In this situation the film is released and it's a global smash. People go wild for it and it wins awards, but beside the people who are running the AI, the rest of the world are completely unaware the whole film wasn't made by a human.

This is a similar situation to what your suggesting, and to be honest it's a tough philosophical question to answer. If you're completely unaware the product has been made by an AI, then can it really still be considered art? I guess to answer this we'd need to first come up with a definition of what art actually is.

It's getting a bit worrying. AI created "art" is one thing, but we're heading into a world of AI automation that will replace humans in many different sectors. I'm not sure this is a world I'd be comfortable with.

 

[jason10mm]

The problem with AI generated stuff is that they can make it so much faster than we can so thry will eventually outpace us and drive trends. If a AI 'compares' itself to other AI then that feedback loop can be microseconds long and leave us on the dust.

 

[Reallink]

It looks good, but as it's generated by AI, I cannot consider it as art.

It's less generated by a computer and more a remix machine that pieces together a puzzle based on examining millions or billions of man made art examples. The AI is not thinking, it's effectively just running a Google image search on Salvador Dali, pulling pieces from all of his works, and putting them together based on a human preference rating model.

 

[Razorback]

It's less generated by a computer and more a remix machine that pieces together a puzzle based on examining millions or billions of man made art examples. The AI is not thinking, it's effectively just running a Google image search on Salvador Dali, pulling pieces from all of his works, and putting them together based on a human preference rating model.

And what exactly do you think humans do differently?

 

[IDKFA]

And what exactly do you think humans do differently?

I'm sure Michelangelo was putting a great deal of thought into the Sistine chapel and wasn't running a Google image search.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

It’s already moving into video now, there is a text to video app out there but it can only produce 5-7 sec of video

Link? Is there one better than the rest?

 

[Grildon Tundy]

It's less generated by a computer and more a remix machine that pieces together a puzzle based on examining millions or billions of man made art examples. The AI is not thinking, it's effectively just running a Google image search on Salvador Dali, pulling pieces from all of his works, and putting them together based on a human preference rating model.

And what exactly do you think humans do differently?

I'm sure Michelangelo was putting a great deal of thought into the Sistine chapel and wasn't running a Google image search.

Sounds like the debate surrounding this topic stems from a disagreement on the definition of art. I see your apparent disagreement as being whether art is A) the end product only or B) the holistic combination of the artist, process, end product, interpretation of the work, or C) other permutations of/additions to definition B that I'm not considering.

This is going to be a contentious issue, since I think everyone can have their own definition of "art". In the meantime, the actual direction of the world will be driven by what makes money (sad lol), so whether you agree with that direction or not , AI art will have its place from here on out.

 

[Bragr]

I'd have look into the piece to see if was created by a human or AI.

There is a great book about AI called Life 3.0 by Max Tegmark. At the start of the book he imagines a scenario in the near future where an AI is so advanced it can create a full 3D animated film. To ensure the film is actually decent, the AI studies award winning films in the same genre and learns what humans would find appealing. In this situation the film is released and it's a global smash. People go wild for it and it wins awards, but beside the people who are running the AI, the rest of the world are completely unaware the whole film wasn't made by a human.

This is a similar situation to what your suggesting, and to be honest it's a tough philosophical question to answer. If you're completely unaware the product has been made by an AI, then can it really still be considered art? I guess to answer this we'd need to first come up with a definition of what art actually is.

It's getting a bit worrying. AI created "art" is one thing, but we're heading into a world of AI automation that will replace humans in many different sectors. I'm not sure this is a world I'd be comfortable with.

Well, you better get used to it. You just have to accept that this is gonna drive the future.

The top A.I. scientists expect to be able to create child-like A.I.s within 10 to 15 years.

At some point, hopefully, in our lifetimes, you will likely be able to insert parameters like "a game like god of war with aliens" and a cloud-driven system will be able to design it. Creating personalized games.

Porn actors will license their looks, allowing you to craft your own realistic porn scenes, your home system with have a personality, that people will care about like any other person.

Just imagine when they can design robots that have genuine personalities, effectively solving loneliness. People will marry their robots.

I don't know how much we will see in our lifetimes, but I expect the brain to eventually be fully mapped and re-created.

 

[Bragr]

This is going to be a contentious issue

I don't think it will be for long, when people will start to enjoy computer-generated art, with the understanding that this will continue to grow, people will turn relatively quick.

You will have some who will argue, of course, but 20-30 years from now, you will have movies with Brando and Robert De Niro in their youth in Godfather 4 and people won't bat an eye. There is no effective path to escape this.

I expect the way that big entertainment companies will make money will be to license actors and singers and whatnot, as people will still feel relations to other humans, even if their content is computer-generated.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

I don't think it will be for long, when people will start to enjoy computer-generated art, with the understanding that this will continue to grow, people will turn relatively quick.

You will have some who will argue, of course, but 20-30 years from now, you will have movies with Brando and Robert De Niro in their youth in Godfather 4 and people won't bat an eye. There is no effective path to escape this.

I expect the way that big entertainment companies will make money will be to license actors and singers and whatnot, as people will still feel relations to other humans, even if their content is computer-generated.

Oh yeah? You don't think it'll continue to be contentious? Well I DO. And I think it will be for a long time so fuck you pal.

lol, jk. I'm just pretending to be the Internet

I get where you're coming from and agree. I think there will continue to be holdouts, just like you have people who think "digital painting" is cheating vs using traditional media.

 

[IDKFA]

Well, you better get used to it. You just have to accept that this is gonna drive the future.

The top A.I. scientists expect to be able to create child-like A.I.s within 10 to 15 years.

At some point, hopefully, in our lifetimes, you will likely be able to insert parameters like "a game like god of war with aliens" and a cloud-driven system will be able to design it. Creating personalized games.

Porn actors will license their looks, allowing you to craft your own realistic porn scenes, your home system with have a personality, that people will care about like any other person.

Just imagine when they can design robots that have genuine personalities, effectively solving loneliness. People will marry their robots.

I don't know how much we will see in our lifetimes, but I expect the brain to eventually be fully mapped and re-created.

Child like in 10-15 years? Why would it have to behave like a human child first? Anyway, a lot of studies I've looked at give it over 100 years, even then that's generous.

The main problem is that we don't even understand the human mind fully. We don't have a full grasp of what consciousness really is. Then add in the fact that our very existence and the way we behave is the result of millions of years of evolution from primates and complex bio chemicals. Recreating something to be human is a pretty much impossible and pointless task. The human brain will not be replicated in our lifetimes because there are too many variables we either can't recreate, or they're flaws that wouldn't need recreating (phobias for example).

Will AI develop? Absolutely. But it won't have any of our unique characteristics and flaws, such as doubt, empathy, love, depression etc. It'll be cold, calculating and super efficient.

At best, we'll have AI that can easily solve the world's problems with ease. At worse, we'll have the paperclip problem and it'll be the end of us.

 

[Bragr]

Child like in 10-15 years? Why would it have to behave like a human child first? Anyway, a lot of studies I've looked at give it over 100 years, even then that's generous.

The main problem is that we don't even understand the human mind fully. We don't have a full grasp of what consciousness really is. Then add in the fact that our very existence and the way we behave is the result of millions of years of evolution from primates and complex bio chemicals. Recreating something to be human is a pretty much impossible and pointless task. The human brain will not be replicated in our lifetimes because there are too many variables we either can't recreate, or they're flaws that wouldn't need recreating (phobias for example).

Will AI develop? Absolutely. But it won't have any of our unique characteristics and flaws, such as doubt, empathy, love, depression etc. It'll be cold, calculating and super efficient.

At best, we'll have AI that can easily solve the world's problems with ease. At worse, we'll have the paperclip problem and it'll be the end of us.

Child-like is a relative term, maybe an insect is a better one.

The brain is an immensely complex entity that we don't understand completely yet, but we know enough to attempt to recreate some of how intelligence works, and likely it will be something very simple to start with. Something that can judge whether or not it wants something, or say yes or no, without being based on pre-determined notions from humans, but actually processes something by itself.

If we can do that, you can start to alter it, give it different inputs and see how its intelligence reacts. This will give us insights into how intelligence evolves and works in a digital form, and we can design smarter ones.

The 10-15 years prediction is from the AlphaFold guys, which are some of the leaders in A.I.

 

[Bragr]

This guy is one of the lead A.I. guys in the world, he knows more on the subject than most, really good interview if you are interested in A.I.

 

[Razorback]

I'm sure Michelangelo was putting a great deal of thought into the Sistine chapel and wasn't running a Google image search.

He was running a looking around at stuff and what other artists did search and remixed it according to his taste.

 

[IDKFA]

Something that can judge whether or not it wants something, or say yes or no, without being based on pre-determined notions from humans, but actually processes something by itself.

This fills me with dread. Just to clarify, I'm not saying AI won't become so advanced that it'll be able to know what it needs, just that it'll never be human or anything that resembles human. Two different things.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

This fills me with dread. Just to clarify, I'm not saying AI won't become so advanced that it'll be able to know what it needs, just that it'll never be human or anything that resembles human. Two different things.

It is quite dreadful, especially in the scenario in which what the AI needs to sustain itself is, unfortunately, HUMAN SACRIFICE

 

[Reallink]

And what exactly do you think humans do differently?

Not all man made art is derivative.

 

[Ballthyrm]

Fuck any artist that complains about this. If they can't outdo a computer they aren't an artist worth celebrating and they don't deserve an award. These AI programs must use a library of existing styles in order to generate their content. A genuine artist that pushes boundaries and explores new avenues will do more than ape those that have come before them. So again, fuck any so-called artist that complains when a computer rips off those that came before better than they do.

It's just a tool, it will become part of the process and we will see a new pipeline for artist. It's not going to replace them, just like photoshop didn't remove the need for make up artists.

It's interesting that one of the first professions that AI is starting replace seems to be art which is supposedly a creative endeavor. If art degrees were useless before I can't imagine what they'll be a few years

People will tell you any Degree is useless anyways. You pay for the school connections not for what they teach you, you can learn that online for free.
We won't get rid of Artists, we will just adjust our taste and expect more from them , this will raise the quality bar of what people consider Art, which is good.

Did Photoshop got us rid of photographers ? Did photographer got us rid of Fine Painters ?

Not really.
We just expect more from them, You have to be better and have to make something original to stand out.

 

[Tumle]

Link? Is there one better than the rest?

I’ll see if I can find it, but it’s very basic right now and takes time to render at dall-e mini ai settings

 

[Tumle]

I’ll see if I can find it, but it’s very basic right now and takes time to render at dall-e mini ai settings

https://runwayml.com/
Apparently stable.ai is working with runway, to use there stable diffusion with runway, to make text to video possible sooner than expected.
There is a beta you can sign up for on the page


Just saw that’s for text to video editing.. but I’m sure I saw a text to video ai at some point..

 

[Grildon Tundy]

Not all man made art is derivative.

 

[Razorback]

It's just a tool, it will become part of the process and we will see a new pipeline for artist. It's not going to replace them, just like photoshop didn't remove the need for make up artists.



People will tell you any Degree is useless anyways. You pay for the school connections not for what they teach you, you can learn that online for free.
We won't get rid of Artists, we will just adjust our taste and expect more from them , this will raise the quality bar of what people consider Art, which is good.

Did Photoshop got us rid of photographers ? Did photographer got us rid of Fine Painters ?

Not really.
We just expect more from them, You have to be better and have to make something original to stand out.

Just because this has been true in the past, doesn't mean you can extrapolate that indefinitely. Eventually there has to be some threshold where jobs do get massively affected. The car didn't make horses go extinct, but it certainly reduced it's peak population by more than 90%. What would you have to see that would make you worry about the ability for most artists to make money?

 

[VN1X]

When modern day art is so shit computers do it better.

KEKW