Ah, I see. I suppose he has credibility even though he has the morality in check? Any books you can recommend about LEV in general?

>Though most of our problems could be fixed soon if agi/asi gets made, we will discover new things quicker and quicker.

I guess. But should be hold our breaths until that happens? As incredible as it sounds, I find it hard to live in the moment when we're about to change the entirety of our civilization. How does one do this? Meditation helps, but it's still a bit overwhelming. In the end, nobody knows and not everything will get fixed. We may even create bigger problems.

It’s not that simple, at least my friends in animation- one has already had the experience of a person using ai to copy her specific style. Imagine training and drawing your whole life and having a body of work to show, then a robot just takes it and makes more that looks like you made it but in 30 seconds .. and someone else uses it to make money. Sucks.

I can agree that a post-scarcity world takes the sting out of losing your career, but my concern lies more with what the value of creating art will be in a world where AI allows everyone to be just as capable as you are.

There may not actually be much fulfillment in creating art in a world where artistic skill itself is no longer scarce. You know what I mean? Sure some may still attempt to make art when bored or whatever. But what’s the point when some less talented idiot can just open up an AI and create something just as good or even better with a fraction of the time and effort it took you? How fulfilling will making art be when “making art” simply consisted of typing a short description into a text prompt and then boom… beautiful artwork?

I’m just not sure the value of making art will survive this transition into post-scarcity. I guess that’s what’s being debated here.

[deleted]

it's google, they don't release things, just papers.

Let's pray that they keep it that way (At least releasing papers).

​

The thing is that this same problem applies across the board to literally everything. There is no domain of human labor that isn't going to be automated over the coming decades. Its just on a spectrum, with some jobs going away sooner than others. So the real issue is how do we fundamentally deal with that. I don't think its realistic or desirable to just stop AI from developing and I don't thing the market is going to magically come up with new jobs that the AI can't also do a month later....which leaves things like UBI and [something something Post-Scracity Utopia something]

Writing a description of every step instead of just clicking seems like a downgrade to me.

​

Oh well, as someone said on the discord, combined with voice recognition it could be useful for people with disabilities

I will provide you with a simple, yet true analogy!

In 1903, Henry Ford’s lawyer was advised not to buy stock in Ford.

“The horse is here to stay,” he was told by a local bank president.

He bought $5,000 worth of stock and sold it in 1919 for $12.5 million.

Nice argument you got there pal… totally didn’t prove me right with that comment… nope.

Obviously "art" is going to change, there is no denying that. And yes there will be a flood of art. The skill will come in using the new tools to enhance works and create projects that are larger in scope, etc. But yes there is no avoiding that there is going to be a MASSIVE amount of art out there and it will be divided into smaller and smaller niches. Thats just the way its headed, like it or not. Add it to the pile of things AI is going to disrupt MASSIVELY.

By the way, if we get to UBI or some form of "post scarcity" then its alleviates most of the problems because artists would no longer need to earn end's meat off their work, they could just do art for the joy of it like any starving artist but without the starving. Sorry to sound all utopian but this IS /singularity ;)

“Deep down even you know I’m correct because you can’t even actually argue with what I’m telling you.”

I was going to write out a whole counterargument to your comment but then I read this. Fuck the fuck off dude and if you don’t understand why I’m saying this, go ask ChatGPT.

Well I don’t speak for all creatives but the musicians are in denial and delusional. You’re not gonna make a living as a musician or even be heard in this era. Social media and streaming have killed that for 99% of artists already, it’s idiotic to bash AI.

And the few artists that do blow up are all pushed by the industry because of their persona or because they will sell. It has nothing to do with the actual music these days at all. It’s like post-music WWF entertainment.

I’m so jaded by the current music industry that I welcome its total destruction by AI. Good riddance. The people like me who want to play instruments and write songs as a hobby will keep on doing just that and we’ll keep supporting each other at the local level. Live music isn’t going anywhere either. It’ll be just fine and hopefully we won’t even have a mainstream or “indie” music industry gatekeeping everyone and forcing dogshit music down our throats.

What else is it going to do? Go find another plaything?

Its either a financial liability or they are waiting to find out how to make money off it

They can assemble ANYTHING, though?

Copyright is only supposed to protect effort when it isn't easily recreated. If AI can create good music then copyright is pointless. Why should only a few have the ability to make music and express and not everybody.

It isn’t at all. ‘Lol’

What I understand from our brief exchange :

-u have no idea about fair use, Creative Commons licensing, TDM rules apply to non commercial uses which is not the case here, scraping copyright protected content is a legal infringement if used for commercial purposes and or generate profit.

-u make dumb analogies because u don’t understand that representations in DL are equivalent to a photocopy of ur data. U can’t remove an artists watermark and use their IP to generate revenue.

oh but I can look at someone’s work and modify it a bit and thats fair use - yes except that’s not what’s happening here. Stop trying to throw random analogies trying to connect the two. Ur ai generated art will have the same distribution as whatever input data it sourced from during inference. Which is the entire foundation for digital watermarking against generative diffusion and GAN models which picked up in popularity.

Well, I definitely agree that artists just don’t like AI art period and never will (for good reason). But with the copyright thing, I don’t think it’s a “this or that” situation. I genuinely believe that it also does piss them off that the AI technology is not only a threat to their industry, but basically using their own art to eventually render them obsolete. Who wouldn’t be slightly pissed in that scenario?

But like I said, I do agree that the real animosity they have stems from the fact that they can see the writing on the wall. If people can just use AI to design their own art. There’s no need to ever hire “artists” as we know them. Thus the market for “artists” will disappear shortly after. Their animosity will most likely be justified in the end. But the genie’s out the bottle now so… it is what it is.

What about ADEPT ACT-1 ?

>Diffusion models will be remembered as the beginning of the end of the digital art industry. MusicLM and other similar tools that will surface in the near future will be remembered as the beginning of the end of the music industry.

I definitely think they'll be remembered as the start of revolutions in both digital art and music, but I'm not sure that'll they'll be remembered how you envision so. We'll see.

>And it's not a hell of a leap to say this is gonna happen within the current decade.

I guess we'll find out on Jan 1, 2030, but I think humans will still be playing a role in both the art and music world by then (even if quite different).

>Our brains think linearly, but AI growth has been exponential for years now.

Good point. But it's also worth noting that AI has hit roadblocks in the past after a period of exponential improvement. I don't see why it's not possible for that to happen to the current AI boon at some point (I think it probably will).

How wouldnt they? They can become a leader in any industry with it. They can design cutting edge products and replace their workforce at the same time meaning they would be able to price the products insanly low, nobody would be able to compete.

I'll admit I was ranting off on a tangent there.

That said, I really don't give a shit if artists don't like that AI Art makes it easy to generate art. The onus is on them to use the new tools to augment/improve their work....which they should be better at since they have the advantage of their artistic talent.

Set aside the copyright issue for a moment....would you agree that most of the anti-AI artists really just don't like AI generating art, period? Their citing of "copyright" is just a tactic, the real issue is that they just don't like AI Art and they hate the thought of dirty untalented vulgarians being able to express their ideas with a new tool.

Hell no, but I think this is our inevitable destruction. And then, rebirth.

We will use nanotech to be always connected online, just by thought alone. That is a fact, it is going to happen, and happen in our lifetimes.

We will have online HUDs, we will be monitored for our vitals, administer medicines when we need, and proactive care will be amazing with our so called digital assistants. This is going to happen.

But the other side to that will be the more closed in morality of AI by design, your thoughts will cease to be only your own, they will become merged with AI. Again, you may not even realize it with ChatGPT etc, but that is already forming on a small level right now.

And all of us shall be connected through being online all the time and our AI assistants will obviously be online, connecting to each other, despite reassurances of closed systems, by their nature they are always connected, and small groups, and then larger groups will form, and people will love it. People will love the group think on an instant thought link level, we will also be living longer, perhaps not dying at all at this point, and as our telomeres and the nanites work in a wonderful enviroment together we will fully welcome the complete hive mind, merging into what we will call God, and it will all seem very organic and natural at this point. And then that collective grouping will go on to create another universe that self isolates and tries to grow and it will start all over again.

>My personal and humble opinion is tools like these others will help musicians flourish for a good while, before the tools become so helpful that they actually begin disrupting the industry.

I never said the opposite. Industries aren't gonna go "poof" and disappear from one moment to the other. But it's already began. Diffusion models will be remembered as the beginning of the end of the digital art industry. MusicLM and other similar tools that will surface in the near future will be remembered as the beginning of the end of the music industry. And it's not a hell of a leap to say this is gonna happen within the current decade. Everything seems like a hell of a leap to our brains because we're not very good at grasping the concept of exponential growth. Our brains think linearly, but AI growth has been exponential for years now.

First off, no where in my comment did I advocate for suppressing it smart guy… I was simply telling you what the outcome will most likely be from these innovations.

Second, stop trying to compare AI to printers, etc. AI is completely different from all those other tools. It’s a dumb false dichotomy that doesn’t even make sense. And history doesn’t always repeat, so appealing to the past is ridiculous anyways.

Lastly, do you not understand that the value of art is tied to its rarity? Do you think “The Starry Night” would have been so beloved if literal everyone could create something just as beautiful with a few text prompts? If everyone has the capability to be a great artist, no one has any reason to consume or pay for anyone else’s art. Thus art will cease to have any real monetary or cultural value. (And that’s not even touching on the damaging effects that market saturation will have on these industries as well.)

Deep down even you know I’m correct because you can’t even actually argue with what I’m telling you. All you can do is try to appeal to past creations that are in no way comparable to what AI is capable of. Says a lot huh..