redwattlebird comments on The Perfect Response

[–] redwattlebird@lemmings.world 15 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

The issue isn't automation itself. The issue is the theft, the fact that art cannot be automated and the use of it to further enshittification.

First, the models are based off theft of OUR data and then sold back to us for profit.

Secondly, most AI art is utter crap and doesn't contribute anything to human society. It's shallow slop.

Thirdly, having it literally everywhere while also being completely energy inefficient is absolutely dumb. Why are we building nuclear reactors and coal plants to replace what humans can do for cheap??

Edit: further, the sole purpose of AI is to hoard wealth to a small number of people. Calculators, hammers etc. do not have this function and do not also require lots of energy to use.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[+] Scubus@sh.itjust.works -8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

Ive responded to a lot of that elsewhere, but in short: i agree theft bad. Capitalism also bad. Neither of those are inherit to ai or llms though, although theft is definitely the easy way.Art can be automated, nature does it all the time. We cant do it to a high degree now, i will concede.

Quality is of course low, its new. The progress in the last year has been astounding, it will continue to improve. Soon this will no longer be a valid argument.

I agree, modern ai is horribly innefficient. It's a prototype, but its also a hardware issue. Soon there will be much more efficient designs and i suspect a rather significant alteration to the architecture of the network that may allow for massively improved efficiency. Disclaimer: i am not professionally in the field, but this topic in particular is right up mutiple fields of study i have been following for a while.

Edit: somehow missed your edit when writing. To some extent every tool of productivity exists to exploit the worker. A calculator serves this function as much as anything else. By allowing you to perform calculations more quickly, your productivity massively increases in certain fields, sometimes in excess of thousands of times. Do you see thousands of times the profits of your job prior to the advent of calculators, excluding inflation? Unlikely. Or the equivelent pay of the same amount of "calculators" required for your work? Equally unlikely. Its inherit to capitalism.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] prototype_g2@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Art can be automated

Under what definition of art can that be possible? Is art to you nothing more than an image? Why automate art and not other tasks? What is the point of automating art? Why would you not want to make art yourself and instead delegate it to a machine?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Art is whatever people put into it. If its a passion for you, theres nothing stopping you from making it. For me, art is mostly music designed to evoke an emotional response and game assets for hobby programming, not for commercial use. Im not profitting off either of those, but I don't have the funds to pay someone to make custom assets nor do I have the talent.

There has been art before that was not done by humans. There is a selfie of a monkey, paintings by elephants, semi-self generated art via fungus, etc. In those examples, the story is as much a piece of the art as the image itself. That subset of art cannot be replaced without simply lying.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

I keep trying to tear away, but you are so goddamn funny.

Art can be automated, nature does it all the time.

Okay.

There is a selfie of a monkey,

Right.

And it was nature that did this.

Nature took a picture of itself as a monkey.

Nature, in its monkey form, started a wild rube goldberg machine, including a monkey and the monkey's finger, to automate the picture taking process: a picture of nature.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Tree falls in forest. Thats art.

Nature created humans. Humans create art.

Take a paintbrush, hook it up to a treadmill. Thats art.

So many easy ways to automate art, its almost like you're poorly flailing to get a gotcha thats never going to happen. I was trying to be civil and not simply treat you like a dumbass, but seeing as you're intentionally trying to be one i no longer see the harm.

And now youre going to start spouting esoteric crap like humans not being a part of nature. Tf are we then, some other dimensional being? You think you've got a soul and that makes you different from nature, but all that really means is that you're bad at analysing things from perspectives other than your own.

Edit: lmfao nevermind, reading clearly isnt your strong suit. From the get go you've been spouting ireelevant bullshit like a child, then when i ignore your tantrum you double down. You're clearly not here for a discussion, so hopefully you won't be too terribly surprised when (surprise surprise) here in 20 years everything i said turns out to be true. To those that actually follow the tech and have for decades, none of what is currently happenning is surprising and weve been trying to warn people for years. But you always end up with people like you, too dumb to listen and too convinced of their own ego despite literally not making a single good point this entire conversation, hell even a single coherent thought. Have a great day 😄

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] prototype_g2@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago

nor do I have the talent

And why do you think you do not have "talent"? What is that "talent" you speak of? Is it something people are born with? What is the problem with what you make, if all you care about is what people put into art?

Art is whatever people put into it

"It" what? The pronoun "it" is referring to what? Art? Without this clarification I cannot accurately make sense of anything else in your response.

Keep in mind that, while defining a term, you cannot use that term in it's own definition.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] redwattlebird@lemmings.world 3 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

Art can be automated, nature does it all the time.

Ok, first off: what is your definition of automation? This is what I mean when I say automation.

Nature does not automate art. Are you equating the process of, say, almost all bower birds make bowers, therefore that's automation? Then you have a poor understanding of what automation, art, and therefore AI/LLM, is meant to achieve.

With art, you need to think about the state of mind to create that piece in the first place. Before it was created, it doesn't exist in any capacity. Why the art piece exists in the first place is the reason why AI cannot automate it because human emotions are very complex.

If an AI/LLM can experience human emotions, we've essentially created another type of human. This is deeply profound and, with the technology and materials we have now (that is, the processing chips and hardware), it is simply not possible. We're at the point where we're making small, tiny leaps in gains.

Which leads me to...

It's a prototype, but its also a hardware issue. Soon there will be much more efficient designs and i suspect a rather significant alteration to the architecture of the network that may allow for massively improved efficiency.

It is not a software/coding issue that limits an LLM's capability to emulate the human psyche. Again, it is not tweaks in code structure that will send us rocketing up the graph of progress. It is the limitation of the actual materials that we use and their maximum efficacy, hence why we need nuclear reactors and so on to power thousands of processors. We will never get to the point of replicating human ability and energy efficiency with the materials that exist in Earth. And, are we going to spend more energy and resources to look to the stars for a material that may or may not exist to create a machine that has the capability to think as a human?

How long did humans take to evolve to the capacity we have? That took hundreds and thousands of years of trial and error. But I digress...

Its inherit to capitalism.

Absolutely agree. The whole purpose of this 'AI boom' is to make more money for the <1%, steal from us and hoard it for themselves. On this basis, I completely reject the use of LLMs. Fuck AI.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

we will never get to the point of replicating human ability and energy efficiency with the materials that exist in Earth

That is flatly incorrect. There is a type of ai that is literally just replicating the human mind, hardware and all. That is well within our current technology, although the connections would not be the same as it would merely be a clone. But a cloned human is an artificial intelligence.

I know that form of ai is not what you are referring to, but why not? What is it about ai that makes it impossible to replicate in a metallic substrate? And even assuming a metallic substrate is flatly impossible, that still doesnt stop progress. There are youtubers currently working of making an artifical rat brain in a jar play doom. This is not a piece of a living rat, these are rat neurons grown from stem cells that were converted from skin cells. So we could just as easily start progress down physical ai's.

As for evolution, that was millions of years of random chance, the difference between that and guided evolution is too great to even compare. And the materials came from Earth in the first place. The entire idea of ai is based around replicating what nature did in the first place, thats how all our technologies are made. People said it was impossible for people to fly merely a decade before the wright brothers. The only difference now is that there is no material scientist on earth that claims wed have to go to outer space to replicate the hardware neccassary for ai.

Edit: forgot about the first part of your comment. this should largely cover that

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] redwattlebird@lemmings.world 2 points 1 year ago

But a cloned human is an artificial intelligence.

No, it's not. Artificial intelligence is something that is artificially created, like a machine, that can think like a human. A human clone is human, literally.

I think we're both standing from extremely different points of view here on what AI, that is artificial intelligence actually is. But I concede that my statement about it being impossible to create is hyperbolic. We're can't say for certain that it's impossible.

I know that form of ai is not what you are referring to, but why not?

... Because... It's wrong.

I wouldn't call investing power and resources to replicate human capability progress. It's literally going backwards and rebuilding from scratch. Is this line of research honestly worth pursuing at the cost of our climate and environment? It's the same with the Wright Brothers; their technology paved way for increased consumption of resources and rate of spread of disease.

Yeah we get brand new shiny things but at what cost? Is it worth it in the long run? Is it worth automating human capability when we've messed up every single step of our planetary ecosystem?

I would much rather live in a world where all the effort and resources that is currently put into 'AI' redirected into sustainable systems. That, to me, is progress that is worth pursuing.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent