/lounge/ - Lounge

>>317865
>happy with the through normgroids are going to suffer and lose their jobs.
thats why I'm laughing

>A part me is happy with the through normgroids are going to suffer and lose their jobs.
That part of you is a faggot.

I just wish more people would start to perfect AI generated images so they have no mistakes. Why isn't editing AI pics with Photoshop more popular these days? AI apollogists are too content with low quality pictures and AI abolitionists are too dumb to realize getting good at editing with Photoshop or Gimp will be crucial to survive in the near future.

>>317867
It's just Schadenfreude, misery loves company.

>>317870
Ai will naturally advance and refine itself over the next few years

I expect perfection by the end of the decade

>>317865
The exact same sentiments were popular when horses were being replaced with cars; I imagine something similar when scriptoriums were replaced with the printing press. Significantly *not* when animal plows were replaced with industrial machinery - because the outcome mattered more than the sentiments behind it.

It's romanticism in the literal sense that these sentiments are coming from. In the 1800s and thereabouts the general sentiment of artistic (read: luxury) expression was finding and magnifying artificial sentiments in the face of a rapidly rationalised and optimised world - were how you felt about your day's work was rendered irrelevant.

So now the Idea and utility behind the art-artefact becomes the important part, because the barrier to entry for an idea to be expressed in the contemporary optimal form has now been drastically lowered.

Again back to the printing press - completely wrong bestiaries written and published by entrenched institutions have little utility when there are a variety of others available with greater accuracy and a lower price.

This is what progress feels like. If you weren't around for the internet revolution in the 90s, this is what it felt like. The incidental institutions and sentiments built up around them were shown to be cope; and the appeal of individual artefacts of low quality _because that was the only option_ was shown to be delusional.

To put it yet another way, artists are no longer the sole supplier of art-artefacts, much like the music hall is no longer the sole supplier of music artefacts. The market will shift and whoever insists on investing themselves in an *obsolete* production discipline will quite rightly be ground into the gears and left to starve.

>>317870
Because time and motion spent in manual development is wasted when a new revision in 3-6 months renders it irrelevant.

That's maybe an extreme, and I do get what you're saying, but ROI is going to be a *major* factor in the coming years.

Superficial images that communicate nothing and are full of inhuman errors that ai bros are too lazy to fix aren't going to replace actual art.

For fuck sake, it can't even competently write a essay or poem after 30 years of development.
And as far as image generators, the raw unedited images aren't even good enough for porn, the lowest form of art.
It's incapable of art that tells a proper story.

Retards always think tech development of whatever is the fad at the moment is exponential. Tech development is never exponential. Generative ai won't be a exception.

>>317878
I've seen a few trailers made solely by AI prompts on YouTube.

They do require tons of Nvidia rtx graphics cards or Mac Mini M4's chained together to make, so it's by no means cheap.

Their only weak point really is facial animations and facial features.
They still can't get mouth movements fluid enough and head tilts, hand movements etc. still look too mechanical.

>>317865
This post reads like it was generated by either deepseek or Grok. The way they type it is one from uncensored corporate models.

>>317878
The problem is that the average person will eat shit. They dont even appreciate good art. Even if you can only sell to the bottom 20% of society it's worth it to cut costs and churn out algorithmic shit.

it's very exciting for me. and though i'm afraid of much of its effects on society, i still feel glad to be alive to witness it.

>>317951
ur one of those shiteaters mentioned above

>>317956
no, i'm not an average person, so that remark above doesn't apply

>>317865
I fail to understand why so many people are sperging out over AI-generated art.

I remember a story about a mathematician who, for years, worked on his pet project every weekend. He wanted to prove that a certain large integer (I think it was a Fermat number) was not prime and thus he was looking for a factorization of this number. And after years he finally made it and it was deemed a big deal: he presented his result to his fellow mathematicians and everybody clapped.
Nowadays all those years of work could be carried out in a matter of hours (if not minutes) by a powerful supercomputer. Art isn't any different.

Everything humans do, can be mechanized and optimized. Artists like to think they are special and particularly "creative" compared to other professions, but that simply isn't true. A Frenchman (I think it was Voltaire) once said: "Originality is nothing but judicious imitation." The end result of training an AI model is exactly that: a kind of judicious imitation, mechanized and optimized. Human artists simply aren't as "original" as they like themselves to believe. Much of modern art has become abstract doodles (that nobody really likes) in a quest for "originality" and perhaps also because modern people are lazy and didn't want to bother spending years and decades mastering perspective and anatomy. But either way, that doesn't matter anymore. Art seems to be on its way towards becoming automated and every single consumer will have access to his own custom-tailored entertainment and that will be the end of any sense of a shared popular culture. Personally I do not mind the ensuing solipsism. We have no need for "canons".

It is nihilistic, but our culture is generally rifled with disrespect.
What baffles me more are retards that claim that art is gatekept, elitist and entitled. Literally anybody can do art, and its one of the cheapest hobbies out there with shitton of free resources to study. It is quite literally THE MOST liberal and free craft in the world. Literal amputees can do art. To have to put in hard work to create something worthwhile is not entitled or lazy. What entitled is to just expect good things to be free and easy. The vindication some retards feel towards artist is completely unfounded and unfair. I don't understand how humanity just saw someone who is poor and hardworking and then just thought, yep that's the one that deserves our scorn.

>>317876
Not comparable. Writing and riding are just utilitarian things. Art is something a human engages with to get away from the utilitarian. No form of art will ever truly be obsolete if its actual art and not just content produce. Even handpainted portraits are still a things despite photography existing. And here am I adressing OP as well.


I lately discovered this artist, mossacannabilis or something. They are not exceptional in style or technique, but I can tell that his art will never be replaced by ai, because it is sincere and inspired by life experience. Looking at it feels like communicating with human being, as it should be, and sometimes humans can be gross but that is fine. There is personal story behind it and that is what makes it captivating, looking into the soul of another human. The point is even if ai can copy the style, the prompter will never come up with anything good to do with it. They won't produce anything with same appeal and effect, it will be just reiteration of things already happened. People consume other's art BECAUSE they can't come up with similar imagery, yet alone describe it. They seek a new flush of emotions, a unique perspective, to be shaken. Just looking at beautiful image is not enough, it gets boring.

That is all to say, no one will remember aislop, no one will be touched by aislop, none will ever treasure or care to preserve it. People making ghibli memes will not make it so that people are no longer interested in actual new productions by ghibli, but if they would to use ai for their work the interest indeed will fall. Their works without miyazaki already tend to flop. If you think normies would gladly eat shit you are not completely right, open facebook. Whenever something is advertised with AI, people notice and sperg out in the comments. It's different with children obviously, but for an adult normie that has already eaten a dose of shit in their life - they don't have time for stuff that the author didn't care to create. Ai companies spend more money that they produce and investors are slowly pulling back. After seeing facebook I am actually convinced that posts shilling AI are mostly bots by ai providers who are at this point desperate to make their tech relevant now that the novelty bubble has burst. Because the shill only happens on xitter and boards, places where its easy to anonymous.
People creating slop content like web designers are gonna be replaced but its not a loss to anyone. Actual art is not getting replaced, however people will likely be much less anal about technical skill. Which is not strictly bad or good. But I feel like art actually won by this development of things because it reminded general public why art is art and not content. Purging the idea that artist should just become corpo slave shitting out marketable ideas for profit is good. Talented people should not waste their talent serving derivative and banal corporate ideas, but since its possible nowadays, a lot of aspiring artists aim to.


And by the way I am not artist, I am a lab rat. I just do world building as a side hobby and I found ai to be utterly disappointing in regards to portraying things I want it to, because my vision is too specific. Things that mean something can't just be a pretty amalgamation of random symbols. Every stroke of design I do is equally important in forming the whole picture and ai doesn't quite get it. If it can't find a reference it just ignores that part of the prompt. So its not good for anything other that the lulz.

>draw a line
>does the line looks like how it's supposed to look
>if not then undo and draw it again
>if yes move to the next line
Drawing is mechanical as shit. It getting replaced by machines is not unexpected.

>>317865
For everything that you mentioned in your post, I think that there's an even scarier implication that I haven't seen being discussed much. No one takes a minute to actually consider and think about how those modern AI tools work. They don't draw, that much is obvious. They use electronics to simulate a bunch of neurons. At first, those neurons are fed thousands of images to create desirable pathways between them. Then, they can *imagine* similar pictures just like a human brain would and their output is sampled into an image. Of course, the human brain is infinitely more complex. It contains parts that deal with completely different activities and interface with other parts of the human body. Nevertheless, the main principle is the exact same.

Have you ever played a video game that stimulated your brain to such an extent that images from it seemed to flash inside your mind when you closed your eyes afterwards? Have you ever played with ants crawling on bricks outside your house for so long that you thought you were seeing the same ants crawling on the floor of your bathroom when you came back inside, even though there was nothing there? I know I did. The real reason why those tools often can't get so many details right is because most humans wouldn't be able to get those details right inside their imagination either. If I ask you to imagine someone you know, do you see the exact shape of their hands or their cheekbones? Does it pop out to you immediately? Of course not. Those tools aren't imperfect because they haven't been refined yet, they are imperfect because the process itself is imperfect. It's imperfect in humans as well. This leads to a realization that we're nothing more than flesh automatons. We just don't realize it because we can't sample the outputs of our brains and turn it into something objective like an array of pixels. All of our memories, all of our thoughts and feelings are just connections between neurons inside our brains or elsewhere inside our bodies. Isn't that prospect terrifying? I used visuals as an example, but this argument holds with anything synthesized using AI tools like sounds, text and animation as well.

Our memories aren't how the events actually happened, they're an imperfect reflection of real world from the past stored in neurons somewhere inside our brains. That's why we forget so many things over time. That's why we constantly mess up details inside our memories. Each time you recall a memory, it's actually your brain generating new images from legacy information that it imperfectly preserved. The past doesn't exist the way we think about it. To our brains, there is only now. When you recall something, it's a false image based on how the pathways inside your brain line up right now.

All of this has been known long before neural networks became as capable as they are nowadays thanks to more powerful hardware. The only real solution is to ignore it, but the proliferation of AI tools makes it more and more difficult to ignore with each passing day. It proves to us just how fake all of us are. I'm bewildered by how few can truly see it for what it is.

>>317866
Well, I'm not. That includes people who created the media that we love and cherish. It includes the artists who designed and animated Yui, too. You might argue that all forms of art have been getting worse throughout the years and not much value will be lost from it nowadays, but I think there's still good art to be found even in modern day and age. AI is going to kill off what little of it is left by drowning out promising small-scale artists with a deluge of mass-generated content made for quick profit. It's already starting to happen.

>>318191
the quality of sex dolls and robotics, it seems unlikely.

>>318278
haha what, im pretty sure every prostitute is dead inside.

Do you mean Geisha? easily replaceable by a robot. The Japanese may even prefer the robot.

>>318280
soon it will be replaced by robots.

>>318282
Correct it'd be unethical for them to have one.

>>317865
>AI-written post
lol. Lmao. Is it only obvious to me? So many tells

we need to replace the entire foid species with ai sexbot dolls.

AI art still terrible. Im almost sure this is near the best it can produce when it comes to "drawing"

the only AI that is remotely good is sora which costs a little fortune each month

The name of the game is to buy as many robot slaves as possible if you want to make decent money.

>>317865
>>317877
This killed all my dreams I never pursued.
I could be like this wiz: >>317866 and laugh at others misery to ease my pain for never having pursued my own creative dreams.
Never spent the time to learn to draw, model, anything…

>The whole idea of *earning* your living with skill and craftsmanship? Gone.
It's a real shame only the things that feed the human soul, and jobs that didn't suck AS MUCH are the ones to go…

>A part me is happy with the through normgroids are going to suffer and lose their jobs.
Again I really wonder how many actual wizards here are NEETs.
I spent almost 10 years as one, but at 28 I had to get a job. Couldn't escape it.
My job felt like a miracle, home office, just have to do basic help desk stuff.
Now obviously it's ripe for being automated by AI.
I'm worried, yet I don't consider myself a "normgroid", will turn into a full fledged wizard in less than a year now.

I'm genuinely terrified as my current job is already a miracle. Anything I might learn in the meantime, get a CCNA or something to get a bit higher up wont help I fear.
It all feels futile.
Nothing to look forward to, nothing worth pursuing. All I can await is to be culled in WW3 or a pandemic or whatever else they have prepared to remove the "useless eaters".
I have to ask, what do wizards who have only themselves to depend on do nowadays?

>>317876
Please do consider that art for profit isn't the only thing actively harmed by this.
Any form of creation is undermined as "must be AI" or is simply DROWNED OUT by the amount of AI generated crap published online.
You mention wrong bestiaries being spread before the printing press? What now?
If you read a guidebook about mushrooms published after 2020-2022~ you have a 90% chance of dying by shitting blood.

AI generated content drowns out real valuable creations and disincentivizes their creations at the same time.
This is like an endless loop leading to nothing worthwhile being created anymore.
Books have already been shit since 1990 for any real information, but now it's beyond reason.
Please do understand that there is a cost beyond capital. A human cost we all pay.


Another thing to keep in mind is that these things aren't 100% controlled as in, no human can determine AI output by their input.
They can approximate, but never fully understand.
We are already losing knowledge, and the ability to maintain some parts of human infrastructure. AI feels like a leap towards idiocracy as it is by default obfuscated to people.
This halfway unknowable thing will be in charge of critical aspects of our lives.

Who will you bargain with when the AI takes your NEETbux away? I think very poorly of people who support AI and spit on those it affects, even if justified by previous grievances.

>>318172
Alright - thanks for the thoughtful response; my counter.

Art - which is to say Artistic Expression, not Art-efacts - is a subjective field, yes? The subjective tastes are and will be shaped over a life time and exist within the context of the viewer's life experiences and other feed-in tastes. You say you experience meta-stimuli through the context of the illustrations; e.g. the story and the captivation. I don't doubt that. Perhaps your experiences of artists in the past made you respond especially strongly to the sensation of sincerity.

If that holds true, then an "Artistic Experience" is essentially a roll of the dice that came up with multiple sixes on multiple axes of the viewer's weightings. E.g. specific music, specific meter, specific visual stimulus etc.

An *identical* response can be triggered by a natural landscape + a musician. I've experienced this personally; just a mountain view in sunset with someone playing a flute a little way down.

Therefore, if Artistic Experiences are unique to the individual, then *tailoring sense data to trigger an artistic experience in an individual* is within the realm of possibility. Add in a personalised algorithm and you have a recipe for, feasibly, burning out the capacity for an artistic experience by overloading them constantly.

Children are already being raised to this. If meta-art experiences are a thing, if it reduces the market value of AI investment, then that is the next target for the algorithm.

In turn, if novel emotions are the target, then saturating the senses that trigger them will also be used.

The goal of the marketers and the business owners is to control your thoughts. They openly admit to this in poetic language, Rory Sutherland is a good example.

Consider - and I mean this very seriously - that your artistic experience was primed to happen as part of the ground work or practice for the next invasion of thought.

>>318916
What now? Curation.

That, I think is the long term plan; the internet of 2000-2020 was something of a step back in the business of business, that is, limiting access to useful information, controlling options, extinguishing competition.

Saturation with noise and false data means that a curated subset to a certain standard with a fee/subscription model suddenly becomes valuable. What I took for granted when it came to research in 2010 is gradually becoming untenable in the current age. Add in the intentional crippling of free services with AISlop and headlines, and the infeasibility of operating competition *without* the AI Enhancement and you see how yet more consolidation and yet more monopoly power accumulates in the winner's hands.