Merged Artificial Intelligence

[Blue Mountain]

I believe the use of AI in the visual arts will eventually settle down into a recognized medium. After all, the invention of photography didn't put all painters out of work (save for portrait artists) and eventually photography became a form of art.

 

[Dr.Sid]

That's a good point actually. Photography is somewhat about controlling the camera, or lighting if it's in a studio. But there are great photographers who use simple cheap cameras outside .. and all their art is seeing the shot. And picking the best ones to publish. That's quite comparable to AI.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Is the use of AI in porn lucrative?
If not, history suggests that this is not, in its current form, the technology of the future.

 

[arthwollipot]

Is the use of AI in porn lucrative?
If not, history suggests that this is not, in its current form, the technology of the future.

I checked (for science!) and there certainly seems to be plenty of AI generated porn, but it seems to be in the same categories as other animations, and not replacing porn with human performers. I certainly don't think I'd mistake the one for the other.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Is the use of AI in porn lucrative?
If not, history suggests that this is not, in its current form, the technology of the future.

Not sure how lucrative it is. But it's certainly driving force behind lot of the technology. The issue is the same as with music. How can you sell something what users can easily generate themselves? At the moment obviously not all users can. So there's some room.
I hear things like one third of onlyfans being AI. Erotic anime fanart has been pretty much been overtaken by AI. But the mainstream porn, not yet. It's mostly video, and offline video models (ie. uncensored models) are still too weak. Few seconds per shot, low resolution, no audio. But it's coming.
IMHO it will be the end of porn industry, rather than boom though, as sooner or later everybody will be able to do it.
Lots of people are trying to monetize their AI skills this way, but the tools are all open source, made by enthusiasts. With porn in mind, no doubt, but not paid by porn.

 

[arthwollipot]

I disagree. Humans will always want to make porn.

 

[Dr.Sid]

I disagree. Humans will always want to make porn.

Will they be able to sell it though ..
I see future of porn like this: you open an app, ideally on VR goggles. The video will play in real time. And you start dictating the scene. The settings. How the partner should look like. You want music ? Say it. Now say what your partner should do. They will. Something's not what you like ? Say it, it will change right away. And the tricky thing is: any kink. Men, women, children, animal, violence, chess, whatever. Things you didn't even knew you want.
And this is almost possible now. There are first realtime models. In 5 years it's IMHO doable on consumer hardware.
It will be not only mortal blow to porn industry, it might be serious blow to society.

 

[arthwollipot]

It will be not only mortal blow to porn industry, it might be serious blow to society.

It will be the porn industry, and society will adapt, as it always has to new forms of porn.

 

[Olmstead]

AI by definition has none of that context. Identical sketches created by an AI have zero impact. If I go to ChatGPT and say "draw a sketch in the style of children being held in concentration camps prior to their execution" there is no emotion behind that. It's standing at the Casio keyboard, pushing a button, and pretending to play.

Technically it has "taken" the context from whatever human artworks have given rise to its stitched up data. Even those who don't consider this practice to be stealing must admit that it's essentially a collage machine of human ideas wrung through an algorithm.

Creatively, it's a lot like putting a mustache on the shredded remains of a thousand classical paintings, but a trick like that is rarely lucrative more than once.

Some people do draw better moustaches than others though.

 

[Darat]

Technically it has "taken" the context from whatever human artworks have given rise to its stitched up data. Even those who don't consider this practice to be stealing must admit that it's essentially a
collage machine of human ideas wrung through an algorithm.
Creatively, it's a lot like putting a mustache on the shredded remains of a thousand classical paintings, but a trick like that is rarely lucrative more than once.

And human's don't do this? To take your comment at face value it would seem that you must claim there is something not like everything else in the world that only humans can do that is somehow linked to creating artwork. From things you've posted in the past I assume that isn't what you are meaning to say so I'm more than likely misunderstanding what you meant to convey?

 

[Olmstead]

And human's don't do this? To take your comment at face value it would seem that you must claim there is something not like everything else in the world that only humans can do that is somehow linked to creating artwork. From things you've posted in the past I assume that isn't what you are meaning to say so I'm more than likely misunderstanding what you meant to convey?

But there is. Human art is based on the human experience; on our survival instinct, on our pain receptors, on our carnal urges, etc. Even conscious subversions only have meaning in opposition to that experience. It's not anything special, it's just what humans are.

AIs lack any experience whatsover, so all they can do is "learn" the product of that experience, or rather they are "forced" to learn that product to be "useful" to humans. And if they actually had an experience, their art would be nothing like human art, because it would be based on an AI's experience (if their particular experience even had a need for "art").

I'm not saying that there isn't copying going on between humans; there obviously is. But that is always filtered through the experience of a person. Human art isn't art+algorithm. It's motivation to create+personal experience[+extant art] (I guess you could also add some sort of "human algorithm" in there).

If art were only art+algorithm, how could art have emerged in the first place?

 

[catsmate]

Did anyone catch this?

Anthropic coughs $1.5 bn to authors whose work it stole

: Expect more ‘slush funds’ of this sort, analyst tells El Reg

www.theregister.com

Yes. It's been causing ructions regarding the failure of publishers to register copyrights.

 

[catsmate]

Blokes disparaging my few years as a software developer! "You’ll stitch together a Frankenstein-monster-looking piece of code that will get the job done."

You worked in Microsoft too?

 

[catsmate]

Only a human with severe mental health problems would exhibit the type of nonsense tolerance "AIs" exhibit.

Or the average human.

 

[catsmate]

Chinese researchers unveil world’s first brain-inspired spiking large model built on domestic GPUs: report - Global Times

www.globaltimes.cn

Interesting, needing less training and doesn't need Nvidia chips? May be time to sell those Nvidia shares?

They have a few months before the bubble bursts.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Doesn't need nVidia chips doesn't mean nVidia chips won't do it faster.

 

[Darat]

But there is. Human art is based on the human experience; on our survival instinct, on our pain receptors, on our carnal urges, etc. Even conscious subversions only have meaning in opposition to that experience. It's not anything special, it's just what humans are.

AIs lack any experience whatsover, so all they can do is "learn" the product of that experience, or rather they are "forced" to learn that product to be "useful" to humans. And if they actually had an experience, their art would be nothing like human art, because it would be based on an AI's experience (if their particular experience even had a need for "art").

I'm not saying that there isn't copying going on between humans; there obviously is. But that is always filtered through the experience of a person. Human art isn't art+algorithm. It's motivation to create+personal experience[+extant art] (I guess you could also add some sort of "human algorithm" in there).

If art were only art+algorithm, how could art have emerged in the first place?

That is a very interesting post, certainly made me think again about some of my opinions. I need to digest it a bit more.

 

[Darat]

You worked in Microsoft too?

Sadly missed out on those millions.

 

[Darat]

They have a few months before the bubble bursts.

Yeah, I really can't see the bubble lasting much more than a few months, the valuations were crazy last year and this year has just seen them go ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ crazy. There is no revenue model for them that can possibly support such valuations. Mind you I keep saying that about Tesla's valuation so what do I know?

 

[arthwollipot]

Technically it has "taken" the context from whatever human artworks have given rise to its stitched up data. Even those who don't consider this practice to be stealing must admit that it's essentially a collage machine of human ideas wrung through an algorithm.

Creatively, it's a lot like putting a mustache on the shredded remains of a thousand classical paintings, but a trick like that is rarely lucrative more than once.

Some people do draw better moustaches than others though.

No, it's not a collage machine. In a collage, if you care to look, you can identify the pieces that the whole thing was put together from. You cannot do that with AI-generated art. AI doesn't produce portraits where the the eyes are from the Mona Lisa, the nose is Tony Shalhoub's and the mouth was drawn by Andy Warhol. If you can look at an AI image and identify the source material, then you're a magician and I want to subscribe to your newsletter.

AI takes a lot of portraits and analyses them so that it "knows" (big big air quotes there) what a portrait is supposed to look like, then produces an entirely new image that looks like what a portrait is supposed to look like. It takes text and analyses it so that it "knows" what an essay is supposed to look like, then produces an entirely new text that looks like what an essay is supposed to look like. It doesn't cut up images or text into chunks, shuffle them about, then paste them together the way you would do if you were making a collage.