You're viewing a single thread.
Yet again artists have the most braindead possible take on AI.
Like I seriously dont understand how even "not a computer person" people dont understand that making a plug in for photoshop or an app that turn you into an anime character is completely fucking different to building a robot that does your chores for you AND that we already have robots that do your fucking dishes and laundry for you.
Let me frame this discussion in a different light.
Why are we spending billions of dollars and countless hours of labour developing software that generates images, something that is fundamentally pointless for any actual product application outside of maybe prototyping stuff?
The whole point of art is human expression and experience, why are we putting all of this experience in a blender and putting it into a machine learning algorithm just to pump out rainbow slop?
Sure, on some level I appreciate the concept of the tech overall and there was a time where I thought it was cool and could lead to something new... what ends up happening though, is just giving idiots with businesses degrees more reasons to wring everything of substance from culture.
generates images, something that is fundamentally pointless for any actual product application outside of maybe prototyping stuff?
What? You're legitimately arguing that generating images has no applications? Thats a pretty hot take.
why are we putting all of this experience in a blender and putting it into a machine learning algorithm just to pump out rainbow slop?
Again, a very... interesting take.
So take an example. You are a solo game dev, you're good at programming and game design, but you're not an artist and you need art for your game. So you can either invest a couple thousand hours of your time to learn to do it yourself, or you can spend money you might not have to get someone to do it for you, or now, you can have AI generate the art for you.
AI makes art near infinitely more accessible for people, which is objectively a good thing, but people like you want to gatekeep it for arbitrary reasons.
and if the whole point of art is human expression like you say, well AI art doesnt stop you from creating your own art now does it? So why do you have beef with it?
You are a solo game dev, you’re good at programming and game design, but you’re not an artist and you need art for your game.
You cannot be a gamedev without being an artist. Full stop. You might not have drawing skills, you might not have 3d skills, you might not have musical skills, and you still can produce a great game, but that's because the art in games is more than those things. They're secondary to the experience same as set design is secondary in theatre, a great play will rivet an audience even if you stage it before a blank wall.
Seriously how does your head hold "good at game design" and "not an artist" at the same time without imploding.
AI makes art near infinitely more accessible for people
No: It makes certain specialised subskills more accessible. AI can generate a song to you, you still need to know which song fits your game. It can generate some pixels for you, you still need to work it into a coherent whole that has the impact you're looking for. It cannot write a play for you that you could stage before a blank wall.
No: It makes certain specialised subskills more accessible. AI can generate a song to you, you still need to know which song fits your game.
Okay so at this point it's sounding like an issue of semantics - you're clearly saying that artists can use AI to help their tasking.
I believe the other guy your responding to defines artist as someone who is able to create without AI.
Y'all are hung up over what the definition of "artist" is, but you're in agreement that generative ai can help those who are less skilled in the production of art.
I believe the other guy your responding to defines artist as someone who is able to create without AI.
I'm not disagreeing with their assessment. If you can't create art without AI, you won't be able to create it with AI because you lack the very basic skills of being an artist. Art is not about the medium that art is expressed in, and having help with that medium doesn't make the message art if it wasn't art in the first place.
Y’all are hung up over what the definition of “artist” is, but you’re in agreement that generative ai can help those who are less skilled in the production of art.
No. I'm saying it can help those who are less skilled in the production of a particular medium to produce that medium. You still need to be able to artistically judge that medium. You still have to put the art in. It doesn't come out of the AI, you have to add it in the way that you're employing it.
You still need to be able to artistically judge that medium.
That makes sense! I'd guess that the other guy agrees with this sentiment - their definition seems to center around art enabling the production process.
It's been a while since I've used it, but when I first started playing around with stable diffusion, the results were far from perfect. I'd have to regenerate segments multiple times, go back in with manual image editing, etc. before I would have something I was happy with. Generative models definitely aren't "push button, receive art". On the other hand, I've gotten a few pieces I rather enjoy, but I've had very little artistic training, so I'm grateful.
I’d have to [...] go back in with [...] editing, etc. before I would have something I was happy with.
There. Artistry. The tension between vision and perception, the space of choices that has to be navigated.
Most people's vision when using SD is limited to some thematic idea and a pedestrian sense of aesthetics once they get something that even remotely hits both aspects they post it and call it art that's a) not actually making choices and b) the reason why so much AI-generated stuff out there is barrel bottom at best.
You cannot be a gamedev without being an artist.
This is just gatekeeping nonsense
Seriously how does your head hold “good at game design” and “not an artist” at the same time without imploding.
Because thats me. I design and code games, but im not a good enough artist to make the textures or models. So I either have to but premade assets or hire artists to do the work for me. I dont understand why you think this is a contradiction, other than you just gatekeeping for no reason.
No: It makes certain specialised subskills more accessible
And thus makes are more accessible.
This is just gatekeeping nonsense
Nope it's like saying "you cannot be a gardener without knowing about plants". Games are art. To produce them, you have to be an artist. If you produce games, you are an artist. You might be a brilliant or shoddy artist, formally educated, self-taught, conservative or avant-garde, but you are, by definition, an artist.
Because thats me. I design and code games, but im not a good enough artist to make the textures or models.
If you understand game design then you should understand how it's art.
Have a look at Dwarf Fortress. How many textures and models in that one? It's in the fucking MOMA!
...if you know game design, have no other art skills, and no team, there's one choice you should make before all others: Do you want to get into creating that other kind of stuff, or do you want to make the lack of those things a style? Maybe even an expression in itself. It's going to be the one or the other, so make it consciously, and informed, ideally after having explored both sides a bit, learned enough to know what you don't know, practised enough to see what you'd need to practice to get results you'd like.
In case you think "I'm just going to throw AI images at my VN" -- valid choice. But be aware that without any experience in creating picture media yourself you have no artistic eye for them, and can't judge the quality of the AI output, and probably be unaware of the artistic possibilities inherent in lightening, choice of colour schemes, etc. No you don't need to be able to paint everything yourself, but there's still a baseline of skills necessary to use AI in a capacity that's more than prompting "big bazongaz plz".
I don't doubt that you can train that artistic eye while hitting generate over and over, as long as you're critical enough, but spending some time with a youtube tutorial and actual pencil, crayon, and paper, or actual blender and virtual clay1, will teach you a lot more in a much shorter time-frame. You don't actually have to master that stuff, but you do need to be able to see that you're not mastering it so you can judge whether the AI got it right.
1 Highly reommended but please, for the love of your carpal tunnel, don't try to sculpt with a mouse for longer than a day. Huion tablets are good and cheap. You don't need a display tablet (nobody does but some prefer it).
Nope
Yes, actually, someone arbitrarily deciding what makes someone an artist is by definition gatekeeping.
Have a look at Dwarf Fortress. How many textures and models
Quite a lot? This it has lots of art in it? Its just pixel art? Youre not making the point you think you're making there.
…if you know game design, have no other art skills, and no team.......
This whole paragraph wasnt really relevant to the conversation so im just moving past it if thats okay?
In case you think “I’m just going to throw AI images at my VN” – valid choice.
This is a false dichotomy. Your options are not either put in the effort with traditional art or lazily throw any random AI generated images at your game. You can put time and effort into AI images, to make them have a consistent style and to actually fit what are trying to make. The latest background im making for my game, for example, has taken me well over an hour already and its not quite finished, but its still orders of magnitude faster and better than if I drew it myself
Which is the entire point of my comment. If I had to rely on my own artistic skill or have to pay money I dont have to get art made, then I simply would not have been able to make the game I want to make. Even if I did what you suggested and designed around my lack of artistic skill, that would be a different game than the one I wanted to make. Thats why im saying AI art is a good thing and makes art more accessible. I simply would not be making my game, expressing my creativity and enjoying myself if it wasnt for the ability to generate AI art pieces.
Quite a lot? This it has lots of art in it?
Zero. Dwarf fortress has zero textures and models, at least the base version that generated the cult following, by now there's some extensions. It's rendering to console, not with some 3d API, how would it even use those textures and models? It also doesn't contain pixel art (past the intro screen) same as a street map is not line art.
Seeing that you got such a basic thing completely wrong I do not believe you for one second that you're anywhere close to being a gamedev. Or even programmer. Maybe you're a hobbyist trying to write your first game, in that case be aware that your first ten are going to suck get them out of your system as quickly as possible, don't settle. Move quickly and abandon things.
You can put time and effort into AI images, to make them have a consistent style and to actually fit what are trying to make.
Nothing I said contradicts that. That time and effort, to make it fit what you're trying to make, is an artistic endeavour, all I did was give pointers on how to get better at that stuff.
Even if I did what you suggested and designed around my lack of artistic skill, that would be a different game than the one I wanted to make.
That's not what I suggested. What I suggested was making a conscious, deliberate, informed, choice. Not saying "I want to make a science-based dragon MMO with photorealistic graphics" but "Here's my options, here's what I can do, here's what I can learn in a reasonable amount of time, let's see what option I like best". Make a decision matrix if you have to.
expressing my creativity and enjoying myself
One thing art is not about is enjoyment. I mean it can come with the process but the opposite can be true as well.
Zero. Dwarf fortress has zero textures and models, at least the base version that generated the cult following
The only version ive seen is the steam version that actually has sprites
seeing that you got such a basic thing completely wrong I do not believe you for one second that you’re anywhere close to being a gamedev. Or even programmer.
lmao, fuck off.
One thing art is not about is enjoyment.
What in the actual fuck are you talking about? Theres is 0 chance you actually believe that.
Literrally what the fuck is the point of any of your comments besides being a troll?
The only version ive seen is the steam version that actually has sprites
Tiles are neither textures nor models1. The OG thing, also the one that's in the MOMA, could render to an ANSI terminal.
lmao, fuck off.
...I mean, how long have you been around and how deep did you go that you don't know that DF has existed for ages (2006)? It's one of the standards. It's like calling yourself a movie director but not having seen Seven Samurai.
What in the actual fuck are you talking about? Theres is 0 chance you actually believe that.
The tortured artist is literally a trope by now, though the boundaries to Faustian characters is often blurry. Art is expressive. It can be hedonistic but then because the artist is a hedonist, not because hedonism would make it art.
Literrally what the fuck is the point of any of your comments besides being a troll?
Art. I'm trying to get some basic art education into your skull so that your games won't be, at best, trite slop with questionable mechanics. Producing something great is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration, if you think you can get away with 1% inspiration and 99% masturbation you're in for a rude awakening on release. "Oh no material reality is impinging on my vision", great, another escapist. Touch paint. Or admit that you're dabbling. I'll still grant you the artist title but it'll be in the shoddy category: If you want to create art, fucking care about art.
1 except in a very technical sense when you write a tiler engine using 3d APIs because any grid of values is a texture in that terminology.
So I either have to but premade assets or hire artists to do the work for me.
And by using AI you do neither of those things, and devalue the work of those who do make those things.
You're not wrong, but honestly I cbf to blow my entire savings account on a project that isn't guaranteed to get a good ROI or get me hired somewhere.
It's not that I'm unsympathetic for artists, I just don't have the "value" to give to those artists in the first place. But nonetheless, projects need to be fleshed out one way or another, and programmer art doesn't cut it.
I find that fair actually (maybe if I was a visual artist I'd feel differently) - I can at least respect that you are willing to acknowledge that even if you have your reasons, it's still a devaluation.
What? You're legitimately arguing that generating images has no applications? Thats a pretty hot take.
If you want a good and meaningful end product, yeah.
If you don't care about the end product or it's something that was going to be meaningless from the start, like corporate art, I guess it works.
So you can either invest a couple thousand hours of your time to learn to do it yourself, or you can spend money you might not have to get someone to do it for you, or now, you can have AI generate the art for you.
If you want your game to be a good game, you'll have to invest something into the art, you don't have to be a master artist to make a good game with good art.
AI makes art near infinitely more accessible for people, which is objectively a good thing, but people like you want to gatekeep it for arbitrary reasons.
AI doesn't make art accessible to people, it makes pretty images accessible.
I am not gatekeeping anything, the things that a machine learning algorithm creates can never be art, and if you want to use it for any project you care about, you are making a mistake.
and if the whole point of art is human expression like you say, well AI art doesnt stop you from creating your own art now does it? So why do you have beef with it?
What I'm capable of is completely irrelevant to what I care about, I want people to create cool and meaningful pieces of art, and AI generated images ruin that.
As I said before, you're taking all of that expression and experience, blending it together, and what comes out has nothing in it, it's completely empty of any thought or intent behind it.
I don't want a world where huge amounts of the stuff we see is empty slop, I like art, and this stuff is a threat to the potential of so many artists.
Off the top of my head I could name games like Undertale, that were created by people who were completely new to game dev.
If Toby Fox decided to use AI to generate all of the imagery in that game, it would be nowhere near the art piece it is. But he didn't, he got an artist to work with him to create the vision he wanted for the game.
I am not gatekeeping anything, the things that a machine learning algorithm creates can never be art, and if you want to use it for any project you care about, you are making a mistake.
Same vibes
“Digital Art is not real art, and you’re a fool for thinking so.”
I am not gatekeeping anything, the things that a machine learning algorithm creates can never be art,
"im not gatekeeping, but im deciding what counts as art and what doesnt."
You understand thats like the definition of gatekeeping right?
I don’t want a world where huge amounts of the stuff we see is empty slop, I like art,
More gatekeeping. How is this any different to someone complaining about modern music being "empty slop" because they dont use real instruments? And just because you dont like something doesnt mean it should go away. Plenty of people dont like abstract art and think its not "real art" but those people are also gatekeeping assholes, just like you.
and this stuff is a threat to the potential of so many artists.
Again, if art is all about expressing yourself and human creativity, and AI art isnt "real art" and will never produce anything meaningful, then how is it a threat? You're actively contradicting yourself.
If Toby Fox decided to use AI to generate all of the imagery in that game, it would be nowhere near the art piece it is.
And if he just made all his art abstract paint swirls and splatters, it also wouldnt be anywhere near the art piece it is. So that means abstract art isnt real art right?
"im not gatekeeping, but im deciding what counts as art and what doesnt."
You understand thats like the definition of gatekeeping right?
I would also say that a tree growing freely in the forest isn't art, am I gatekeeping plants from art?
More gatekeeping. How is this any different to someone complaining about modern music being "empty slop" because they dont use real instruments?
Because modern music is art, a lot of it isn't amazing, but it's art.
There's an idea, which is executed through a medium by a human or set of people, and the end result is art.
If something isn't made by a person, it is by definition not art, see my tree in the forest example from before.
Again, if art is all about expressing yourself and human creativity, and AI art isnt "real art" and will never produce anything meaningful, then how is it a threat? You're actively contradicting yourself.
If the mud in my garden isn't delicious chocolate as you claim then why can I still get botulism from it and fucking die?
It's a threat because:
-
Capitalism will seek to use it for more efficient extraction of value, leading to popular culture being even worse on average.
-
It's just bad?
And if he just made all his art abstract paint swirls and splatters, it also wouldnt be anywhere near the art piece it is. So that means abstract art isnt real art right?
What? Yes, if the artist used a different art style for the visual parts of it, it would be a different piece of art. If it was made by a person it would still be art.
In that point I was trying to get at two things:
-
Even if you have basically no skills needed for gamedev, you can overcome it by effort or by collaboration.
-
Another danger of AI, as using it would have been the easier option there, but in turn the end product wouldn't be anywhere near the same quality.
I would also say that a tree growing freely in the forest isn't art, am I gatekeeping plants from art?
Is bonsai an art? I'd say it is. In that case the difference between that and your example is humans providing artistic direction.
Does the same not happen with generative models? In the typical use case, humans provide artistic direction.
It doesn't happen with the output of a generative model by itself, if you edit it afterwards then it can be art because someone did put at least something into it.
Still though, the base in that case is completely meaningless and you'd have to change it massively for it to be anything worthwhile, just like a bonsai requires a lot of effort to be turned from a regular tree to art.
Are you saying there needs to be an arbitrarily decided amount of human effort for something to be art?
IMO any level of human effort (including picking a model and figuring out how to use it) should qualify something as art. Whether it's good or shitty art is a whole other ballgame.
No, there just needs to be some sort of human involvement.
Art is something humans do, computer algorithms cannot do art because they're not people.
Typing "big boobs anime girl pink hair rain low lighting trending on artstation" into a text box is not human involvement in art, and pretending it is is a slap in the face of every human being in existence who ever liked any art ever.
Typing "big boobs anime girl pink hair rain low lighting trending on artstation" into a text box is not human involvement in art
First, go ahead and get the shaming of me for asking this out of the way, and after that's over with, why not?
You said it yourself,
No, there just needs to be some sort of human involvement.
A human was involved in dreaming up a scene depicting something, and proceeded to use their tools to manifest their imagination into an image. They likely chose their tool (different models), used their preferred technique (selecting the right settings, right keywords, and probably regenerated areas that depicted 8 fingers on a hand), and the result was an image that they visualized.
Sounds like human involvement to me, it's not like lightning struck wood and boom, there's a big boobed anime girl with pink hair in low lightning manifest.
Again, gatekeeping whether or not it is art seems kinda silly. The proper attack vectors, IMO, are whether it's good art, with a side of whether it's stolen art.
I would also say that a tree growing freely in the forest isn’t art, am I gatekeeping plants from art?
What?
Because modern music is art, a lot of it isn’t amazing, but it’s art.
Because you say so? What makes you the great arbiter of what is and isnt art? You are literally gatekeeping by the very definiton of the word.
If the mud in my garden isn’t delicious chocolate
What?
Yes, if the artist used a different art style for the visual parts of it, it would be a different piece of art. If it was made by a person it would still be art.
So peoeple that do things like put a hole in a paint can and let it swing back and forth over a canvas? Is that still humans making art? What about mechanical things spirographs? is that still humans making art? What about digital art the relies heavily on computer tools (including tools that often use AI)? What about photographers? Or what about someone that uses generated AI aspects in their digital art? Your definition is reactionary gatekeeping bullshit. And there is no logical reasoning behind it.
Even if you have basically no skills needed for gamedev, you can overcome it by effort or by collaboration.
Okay thats entirely besides the point.
Another danger of AI, as using it would have been the easier option there, but in turn the end product wouldn’t be anywhere near the same quality.
And the Mona Lisa would have been easier to make on a Wacom tablet, but wouldnt be anywhere near the same quality as the original. So Digital art is dangerous too right?
You cannot make an argument against AI that cannot be logically applied to other art as well. So your whole argument is purely emotional reactions and arbitrary gatekeeping.
Because you say so? What makes you the great arbiter of what is and isnt art? You are literally gatekeeping by the very definiton of the word.
I'm fairly sure I mentioned the definition I use for art before. Ai generated images can't be art because they're not made by a person, there's no underlying thought or message, it's just algorithmic slop.
Same thing goes for a tree growing freely in the woods, there's no intent behind it, the tree just grows the best it can to fulfil it's need for sunlight and nutrients, as such it is not art.
Both the tree and AI can create imagery that can be considered beautiful, but beauty != art.
Modern music however is created by people, even if the message behind it is that "I feel so clean like a money machine."
Mud chocolate bit
The point is that even if AI generated images are trash, they can still do harm to culture.
So peoeple that do things like put a hole in a paint can and let it swing back and forth over a canvas? Is that still humans making art? What about mechanical things spirographs? is that still humans making art? What about digital art the relies heavily on computer tools (including tools that often use AI)? What about photographers? Or what about someone that uses generated AI aspects in their digital art? Your definition is reactionary gatekeeping bullshit. And there is no logical reasoning behind it.
That is all people doing things, yeah.
Okay thats entirely besides the point.
I'm just saying this regarding the dEmOcRaTiSinG aRt cringe, are has been democratic for as long as people could make coherent vocalisations, you people just don't want to put in any effort into it.
And the Mona Lisa would have been easier to make on a Wacom tablet, but wouldnt be anywhere near the same quality as the original. So Digital art is dangerous too right?
It's not about how easy it is, it's about it being easy and artistically worthless. It doesn't matter if the sprites were scanned sculptures or crayon stickmen, it was art.
You cannot make an argument against AI that cannot be logically applied to other art as well.
If you willingly misinterpret the point, yeah.
It's not about it being easy, it's that you cannot just take a bunch of art, and taking the fucking averages of it and hoping it to be anything but (at best) pretty images.
I’m fairly sure I mentioned the definition I use for art before. Ai generated images can’t be art because they’re not made by a person, there’s no underlying thought or message, it’s just algorithmic slop.
This is what we would call cirular reasoning. So again. What gives you the authority to declare that this is the definition of art? My definition of art includes AI art. Why do you think your definition is more valid than mine?
Same thing goes for a tree growing freely in the woods, there’s no intent behind it, the tree just grows the best it can to fulfil it’s need for sunlight and nutrients, as such it is not art.
But its usually a person that decides to create AI art right? Like I can go into photoshop and decide "I want to create a cyberpunk city scene" And using little more than the generative AI in photoshop I can turn the image I have in my head into an actual image other people can look at. There is objectively intent behind it as well as creative expression, just like any other piece of art.
What is the fundamental difference between that and If I had used other digital tools in photoshop to create the same image that means one is art and one isnt? They are both "created by a machine" So there is no natural line where we cross from being art to not being art.
That is all people doing things, yeah.
Like you understand computers dont just spontaneously generate AI art right? They require actual input from people. It can be a lot of input from the people are it can be a couple of keywords but its still people.
And all those programs are still made by people, often with painstaking effort. So they are still people doing things.
and artistically worthless.
Another completely bullshit term. That means nothing besides whatever you need it to in order to justify your gatekeeping. If I think modern music is "artistically worthless" then that means its not art right?
If you willingly misinterpret the point, yeah.
Im only """misinterpreting""" it because im applying your logic to situations you dont want me to, because it shows the inconsistencies in your argument.
I know you types dont have educations in this type of things, but if you want to make an actual argument that AI isnt art but digital art and modern music is, then your reasons need to be internally consistent and any arguments you make about AI need to not be applicable to digital art and modern music.
And so far you havnt done that. You've just made baseless assertions and emotional arguments. And this is why people dont take you "AI bad!!!!" types seriously.
-
Ah because a lack of understanding of tech is the only possible reason one might have for criticising the way society allocates priorities.
congrats you missed the entire point of my comment.
What op is doing is like saying "Why do we keep making Netflix shows instead of curing cancer???" Thats not a good criticism of societies priorities, because those things are not mutually exclusive and making a show on netflix is much easier than curing cancer.
Its the same here. Its not like we are choosing to automate art instead of laundry, automating art is just orders of magnitudes easier.
Thats not a good criticism of societies priorities, because those things are not mutually exclusive and making a show on netflix is much easier than curing cancer.
That's a nice strawman, there. Why don't you ask the direct question: Are advances in laundry and dish washing technology easier or harder than in image generation?
You made no argument as to why automating art should actually be easier -- all you provide is an assertion. Consider the billions sunk into buying shovels from nvidia, how much progress could've been made on the laundry front?
Then, your whole line of inquiry is missing the point: It's not so much about relative complexity of the tasks, but the fact that we do enjoy the one, but not the other. What does it say about a society when we focus on automating what we like to do at the expense of stuff that we don't like to do?
Or, differently put: How much advancement in AI do we need to make to have it ask us what a dabbling beginner artist can already ask us, and that is why the hell are we making this choice, and not the other? Art is the science of choice, give it some respect.
What you're doing there is not being smart, being all so enlightened rational MINT brained, what you're doing is going to extreme lengths to ignore a simple question. Was that choice conscious?
Why don't you ask the direct question: Are advances in laundry and dish washing technology easier or harder than in image generation?
Image generation, being purely software, is far easier than automating physical tasks. There's very little risk of danger, you can iterate much faster, and costs are lower. Not really a clear analog, but Boston dynamics spot robot is like 75k, whereas most image generation models are downloadable for free. Once you start acting in the physical world things get expensive and hard.
Consider the billions sunk into buying shovels from nvidia, how much progress could've been made on the laundry front?
Automating laundry would've also required this, as the shovels are for general machine learning. In fact as far as I can tell, these gpus aren't being bought for image generation, but large language models now.
There’s very little risk of danger, you can iterate much faster, and costs are lower. Not really a clear analog, but Boston dynamics spot robot is like 75k, whereas most image generation models are downloadable for free.
I was thinking more development costs. The product price of the robot I'm sure can be brought down significantly with sufficient automation.
Automating laundry would’ve also required this, as the shovels are for general machine learning.
Those LLM fucks are working towards AGI, I don't think my washing machine needs to be sentient to do a good job. Or read reddit and conclude that it should add glue to the detergent.
Engineering-wise improvements in laundry are way easier to deal with because the problem space is well-defined. Want your clothes to come out folded? Sure, not easy, but at least we know what behaviour we're looking for and how to assess it.
I was thinking more development costs.
Like I said, not really a clear analog, however I'm hoping this shows the difference working in the real world makes when it comes to R&D costs. Idk how accurate this website is, but we're talking about literal billions in R&D. Versus most stable diffusion models are trained up by a grad student or something - and subsequently released for free potentially as a reflection of the r&d price.
I don't think my washing machine needs to be sentient to do a good job.
But you will need them to be able to recognize the type of clothing and orientation in a 3d space before manipulating it, and that's where training models comes in.
Versus most stable diffusion models are trained up by a grad student or something
Most SD models are fine-tunes of stuff StabilityAI produces. Training those things from scratch is neither cheap nor easy, PonyXL is the one coming closest as there's more of its own weights in there than of the SDXL base model but that wasn't a single person enterprise. One lead dev yes but they had a community behind them.
If it was that easy people wouldn't be griping about StabilityAI removing any and all NSFW content from their dataset so the community has to work for months and months to make a model erm "usable".
I wasn't able to find exact r&d costs for stability ai, however all the numbers mentioned in this article are at least an order of magnitude lower than Boston dynamics r&d costs.
Again, I assert that working in the physical realm brings along with it far more r&d costs on the basis that there's far more that can go wrong that has to be accounted for. Yes, as you described, the problem itself is well defined, however the environment introduced countless factors that need to be accounted for before a safe product can be released to consumers.
As an example, chess is potentially the most well defined problem as it is a human game with set rules. However a chess robot did grab and break a child's finger a while back. There's a reason why we don't really have general manipulator arms in the house yet.
There is no threat of physical harm in image generation.
The robot had been publicly used for over a decade with grandmasters and this is the first time an accident like this has occurred.
I think that's the problem, there. A decade ago they only just began figuring out how to integrate physical feedback, that robot might not even have any of it but it's vital for fine motor skills and any kind of reactivity. The hardware part isn't the difficult stuff, well it might be difficult but not research difficult, the control software is. Really, hardware isn't the problem (that thing is human-operated).
But anyhow I think all this is kinda missing the point of the quip. It's neither about laundry nor furry porn, but the more general "automating what we like doing vs. automating what we don't like to do". And that might have a deeper reason buried in silicon valley culture and psychology: Going for AGI is the big stuff. Impressing people is the big stuff. Dazzling people with hype is the big stuff. Throwing techbro pipe dreams at problems is the big stuff. Building cars with sub 10 micron tolerance is the big stuff. Solving everyday problems using proven methods? Try getting VC funding for that. Silicon valley doesn't do anything short of "this will bring about the singularity".
Or, differently put: Forget about doing the laundry. How about having to work in a washing machine factory to be able to afford following your creativity in your off time while our tech is more than good enough to run a washing machine factory with just a small team of supervisors. Even the software needed for automatic inspection of parts can nowadays be gotten off the shelf, no assembly or QA workers necessary.
That kind of stuff has a gigantic ROI -- alas, it's also quite long-term, short-term it's cheaper to hire human workers, not to mention human workers in the global south. But it's going to get cheaper as more and more stuff will become standard engineering practice.
The hardware part isn't the difficult stuff, well it might be difficult but not research difficult, the control software is.
That's exactly the "ai" aspect of this, which is why I've been saying it's a harder problem. Your control software has to account for so much because the real world has many unforeseen environmental issues.
Solving everyday problems using proven methods? Try getting VC funding for that.
Fwiw, one of my friends works at John Deere helping with automation by working on depth estimation via stereo cameras, I believe for picking fruit. That's about as "automate menial labor" as you can get, imo. The work is being done, it's just hard.
Going for AGI is the big stuff. Impressing people is the big stuff. Dazzling people with hype is the big stuff.
I think you've introduced some circular thinking in here - spot and atlas bots from boston dynamics do dazzle people. In fact I'd argue that with all the recent glue memes, people are disillusioned with agi.
At the end of the day, manipulating things in the real world is simply harder than manipulating purely digital things.
Once we've established that, then it makes sense why digital image generation is tackled first before many physical things. As a particularly relevant example, you'll notice that there's no robot physically painting (not printing!) the images generated by image generation, because it's that much harder.
Ultimately, however, I don't think society is ready for robots that do our menial labor. We need some form of UBI, otherwise the robots will in fact just be terking our jerbs.
That’s a nice strawman, there
Thats not what a strawman is.
Why don’t you ask the direct question: Are advances in laundry and dish washing technology easier or harder than in image generation?
Harder, obviously.
You made no argument as to why automating art should actually be easier
Apologies, I assumed people had common sense, but you've made it clear I was incorrect. My bad
Consider the billions sunk into buying shovels from nvidia,
Shovels?
Then, your whole line of inquiry is missing the point: It’s not so much about relative complexity of the tasks, but the fact that we do enjoy the one, but not the other. What does it say about a society when we focus on automating what we like to do at the expense of stuff that we don’t like to do?
Its actually like talking to a brick wall.
I need you to understand that people dont sit in meetings and say "should we casually create robots that can do all our daily chores and free the working class from the chains of capitalist oppression, or do we automate furry porn???" We are not automating art at the expense of laundry.
-
We a re doing both
-
and I hate that you're making me repeat this over and over because you have tumblr levels of reading comprehension. Its orders of magnitude easier to white a computer program than it is to build a fucking robot.
What you’re doing there is not being smart, being all so enlightened rational MINT brained
The absolute. fucking. Irony.
simple question. Was that choice conscious?
Youre still missing the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT of my comment. There isnt a choice, this isnt 1 or the other. For the love of god learn to read.
Consider the billions sunk into buying shovels from nvidia,Shovels?
"When there's a gold rush, be the one who sells shovels".
“should we casually create robots that can do all our daily chores and free the working class from the chains of capitalist oppression, or do we automate furry porn???”
Why not? Why aren't we doing it? Why aren't you doing it, why are you reinforcing us not doing it by putting other perspectives down as "braindead artist takes"?
There isnt a choice, this isnt 1 or the other.
Maybe not a binary choice, but there's definitely a priority. People question that priority. Is that question, in your perspective, valid? Would it hurt humanity if we replaced, say, 0.1% of pointless meetings with meetings discussing robots vs. furry porn?
Be bold, ask that question.
Why not? Why aren't we doing it? Why aren't you doing
For the exact same reason YOU nor anyone else is curing cancer, or sending people to Mars, or letting us live forever or creating usable fusion power plants.
And I have told you those reasons MULTIPLE FUCKING TIMES. But your head is so far up your own arse it's like you are physically incapable of reading anything that goes against your dog shit, braindead world view.
So I will reiterate for the umpteenth time:
-
We are doing
-
It's really fucking difficult so it takes time.
Do you understand this time or do you need me to draw you a fucking picture?
I need you to understand that people dont sit in meetings and say “should we casually create robots that can do all our daily chores and free the working class from the chains of capitalist oppression, or do we automate furry porn???”
There you're saying we aren't doing it.
We are doing
Now you're saying we are doing it.
But I think we should set that aside for a second. The actual question I am interested in getting an answer for from you is "should we be doing it".
I think I would have an easier time explaining this to my dog.
That's my entire fucking point. That we are in fact trying to do it. But because it's a complicated problem, we haven't done it yet.
Do you understand what I'm saying????
That we are trying to do those things, right? It's not like people working on AI image generation mean we can't also work on automating other things.
Like can you understand that the 8 billion or so humans on this planet are capable of working on at least 2 things at once?
should we be doing it".
As I've said multiple times: yes and we already are.
Do you understand the word "yes"? Do you need me to explain it to you a couple more times??
That we are trying to do those things, right? It’s not like people working on AI image generation mean we can’t also work on automating other things.
Not what I was asking. I was asking whether:
Would it hurt humanity if we replaced, say, 0.1% of pointless meetings with meetings discussing robots vs. furry porn?
That is, whether we should be thinking more actively about our priorities and choices.
whether we should be thinking more actively about our priorities and choices.
I can actually feel my braincells fucking killing themselves from every interaction I have with you.
So instead of explaining the same fucking thing for the FITH FUCKING TIME to someone that is either a troll or someone with less mental capacity than a cold bowl of soup im just moving on.
-
-
I don't understand how you can miss that of course they are up in arms. The only thing anyone seems to want to use this tech for is to devalue their work.
(Aside from MS who wants to be sure I can cram more productivity for the 1% into my workday.)
I work in a creative industry. Our artists are already using Photoshops generative AI in their work. Which has only made their lives easier. But then again, they are all highly educated and not terminally online.
But then again, they are all highly educated and not terminally online.
So you think the fact that you work with creatives who have accepted this state of affairs means that no other creatives have a valid complaint about their work being devalued, and that anyone who feels they have such a complaint is not thoroughly educated, and probably terminally online. Do I have your position about right?
Yes, I respect the opinions of well educated professionals over the opinion of uneducated randoms on the internet.
Much in the same way I think because I know doctors that have "accepted the state of affairs" in regards to vaccines, that when I see some random person on the internet who disagrees, getting all the technical details objectively wrong, then I write them off as some uneducated nutjob. And I'd be willing to bet you do essentially the same, right?
I would consider myself an "expert" on AI and robotics (thats what I did my masters and Ive been a founder of 2 different robotics/AI startups) so when I see people give their bad takes on AI and get the technical details completely wrong, I dismiss them as uneducated. And because of my work/education I know a lot of other people that are highly educated on AI, include people that are actual artists, none of them, literally not a single one shares these "AI bad, why no do laundry instead!!!!???!!" opinions with these randoms on the internet. And none of these people have ever made a logically consistent argument to me as to why they have that opinion. Its always bad faith or emotional arguments.
If one of these people were to ever demonstrate they know how AI actually works and made an actual well thought out argument against AI to me, I would be more than happy to listen to them and respect their opinion. But I dont see that happening any time soon.
I don't think you can quote me as discussing any of the technical details. I think most creatives who I encounter are not reacting to or considering technical details. They are responding to impacts AI usage has had on them and their industry. One example that comes easily to mind because of all the appeals I saw on social media to stop flooding them with AI garbage is Clarkesworld.
You are out here defending this technology when OP and nearly all complaints aren't about the technology, they are about the shit way in which it's being employed, which is to devalue their works, harm markets, and squeeze out more productivity for the 1% to profit from.
I can almost feel how excited you were to swing your credentials around here while implying no one else is actually a creative, or that we're all just making things up, but you didn't reply to this at all, even though it's 100% simply true:
So I either have to but premade assets or hire artists to do the work for me.
And by using AI you do neither of those things, and devalue the work of those who do make those things.
You can have good reasons for doing so. It doesn't change the outcome. Have the integrity to admit it, at least.
edit - her here
I think most creatives who I encounter are not reacting to or considering technical details.
Thats where the entire "AI just takes parts from other peoples art work and sticks them together" argument comes from.
And this image that got spread around A LOT. That gets the very fundamental details entirely wrong.
One example that comes easily to mind because of all the appeals I saw on social media to stop flooding them with AI garbage is Clarkesworld.
Okay? You could also manually spam a magazine with bad shirt stories, but thats not a valid argument against human generated stories is it?
which is to devalue their works, harm markets,
And Im stating that the technology makes making art easier, so If you adapt to it instead of getting emotional and stubbornly refusing to accept change, then you're not going to lose out like you will if you dont accept new technology. Just like a traditional artist complaining that digital art has devalued them. Its simply made art easier, so you need to adapt.
can almost feel how excited you were to swing your credentials around here
Yep thats why i mentioned them in my very first comment....
while implying no one else is actually a creative,
Except I didnt. I said people that give uneducated opinions are uneducated.
we’re all just making things up
Because you are?
but you didn’t reply to this at all, even though it’s 100% simply true:
And by using AI you do neither of those things, and devalue the work of those who do make those things.
Because it misses the point. The point IS that AI means I dont HAVE to do either of those things. I cant afford to pay an artist for custom art for my passion project. Before AI I would have had to just give up on the project because I dont have the money. But now I can generate it myself in photoshop and I can actually work on my passion project and enjoy myself doing it.
Do you buy all your clothes from people that hand weave the fabrics? Because if you dont then you're devaluing the work of the people that do that.
Do you buy all your food directly from people who hand farm in their gardens? Because if you dont then you're devaluing the work of those farmers.
Do you make art with real brushes made in traditional ways by artisans? Or do you use digital brushes and devalue the work of those traditional artisans?
Technology makes things easier, it always has and always will. You can either cry and complain about it, refuse to change and be mad at people that do things the easier new way and become obsolete, or you can adapt. Simple as that.
Because it misses the point.
So much for integrity.
I don't think you've understood the points anyone has tried to make, and your rebuttal examples are false equivalences.
Good Day.
Why is everyone from .ml such waste of space.
Why is everyone from .ml such waste of space.
I knew the ad hom was coming, it's how you end up in every subdiscussion in this thread when folks don't kowtow to your viewpoint. Half your replies are implying people are stupid for daring to disagree.
I hope the rest of your day is as lovely as you are. ❤️
I mean I wrote a long well reasoned response and you didnt have any actual responses so instead of responding you dismiss it and question my integrity and act smug like you've actually said something. So what else is there for me to do? You're the one that abandoned the argument because you had no response.
And yes, if you make blatantly uneducated statements that are just completely off base, im going ot call you stupid, just like I do with anti-vaxxers and flat earthers. Maybe one day you'll understand.