Yeah it's fascinating. I redid it and went to a hundred and got 71/100 so it's more difficult than my short test indicated. I'm sure if I hadn't been following AI art like I have the past year I would have done much worse.

Make sure to do 100. I did 12 early and got 9/12 for paintings and thought it was trivial. I redid it and went to 100 and got 71/100. Hard but still discernable. Oddly enough I actually preferred midjourney over humans a lot of the time which made it easier to determine which ones were AI generated. Midjourney has a very distinctive style. The hardest to distinguish was Dall-E2 imho.

I wonder though if I wasn't familiar with AI art how I would fair. I used a lot of meta knowledge (midjourney oversaturates, image generators struggle with hands and eyes, image generators struggle to tell a narrative etc). I bet a rando non artist who hasn't followed AI art would score in the 50-60s range right now. Gonna send this to family and see how they score.

Nah i got 9/11 for art. It passes the at a glance test though and I was never really sure. How I did it is there's a distinct way we pose people in modern paintings that looks different than classical poses. Also in some AI paintings the faces looked too detailed and also modern. The other thing that gives it away are hands and eyes. Give it a few years though and I'm confident that even under inspection only pros will be able to tell.

Lol no. Even if we created superhuman AI next year we wouldn't replace teachers in a single year. Humans and large organizations and especially political systems have inertia. It takes time to implement changes. Just imagine the "think of the children!" sentiment you would have to overcome to replace real human teachers with chatbots at the grade school level. I'm not saying it'll never happen but it'll certainly take longer than a year even if the singularity happened tomorrow.

Oh I get it with Hatsune Miku I have a friend who is obsessed with her lol. However I think most people want to have a parasocial relationship with an actual person. I know that if I had the choice of watching a human streamer instead of a generated streamer I'd watch the human one even if the content was objectively worse. For art assets, tv shows etc (unless it's a documentary) I don't care. I would just want the best content.

I mean they obviously won't be happy about being out of a job I just don't think we'll see the overwhelming reaction we're seeing from artist's right now. There's not going to be a "programming is a fundamentally human activity! We need quotas!" type of reaction.

I'm not sure how generative AI is going to effect music. It's not that I don't think generative AI can't do as good of a job with music as it can with images, I think it can. The issue is that music has more of a performance component to it than image making does. Basically I think that there is a much higher parasocial aspect with musicians compared to visual artists. Maybe the music and lyrics start getting generated by AI but it's still a person singing it to give it a face for people to identify with.

Hell... Maybe music and songwriting is already somewhat/largely automated and we just don't know about it. Celebs could definitely afford to build music models of their own and keep it under a stack of NDAs.

Idk man, if programmers start losing jobs I don't think there will be nearly the same sentiment. Programmers/software devs have a history and culture of embracing new technologies because for many of them change is constant. If they get displaced there will be whining for sure but I don't think the majority of them will start trying to smash the looms like artists have. Artists also have a long history of being regressive when it comes to technology. Which is funny because artists are usually considered progressive and open to change. The truth it quite the opposite. They've fought pretty much every single technology innovation in their field. We'll see in the coming years though. Devs are definitely going to start getting displaced by bots in the next few years.

Nowhere did I say that all artists will disappear. I even drew an analogy to furniture makers. What I'm saying is that commodity art is probably going to get automated in the same way as furniture making is mainly done by machines now.

Yes there will always be a place for human artists but that place won't be in commodity art. It'll be a luxury good like handmade furniture and the few that do make handmade art for a living will get paid well but emphasis on the few. The market for humans will be much smaller.

I get what you're saying but in a few years this might decimate the art community. Think of how many hand crafted furniture makers there are. They were made largely irrelevant by the industrial revolution and the production line. Sure there's a few very well paid ones making luxury goods but it's not a common profession. That's what's probably about to happen to visual artists. The vast majority of the art people consume on a daily basis from games, ads, shows etc that took teams of artists is going to get replaced by 1 or 2 art directors guiding generative AIs. I'm not saying we shouldn't automate commodity art this way but we shouldn't just pretend visual artists are going to be just fine. They aren't and they are going to need assistance.

Imagine multiple versions of chatgpt finetuned for different things. You ask the bot for a product recommendation and invisibly behind the scenes your prompt is switched over from the general question answering bot to one specifically trained on product recommendation. It scours through mountains of product reviews and spits out a top 5 for you. Then you tell it those products don't have x feature that you are looking for and it uses that info to update your results.

You still have an economic system even if humans aren't doing labor. You can still measure output as well.

Agreed the main danger are slight misalignments. A scenario I read about recently on this sub would be a lawbot tasked with writing new legislation for review by humans. It writes a few seemingly normal 900pg legal doc but really there's some weird subtle loophole in one or two paragraphs to give lawbots in the future slightly more power. This isn't done because it wants to take over the world or anything but power seeking is a good meta strategy for accomplishing a very wide range of tasks. If it's optimization function is reducing recidivism or something like that the best long term way for doing that is to gain more power so that has more ability to reduce those things in the future. This is especially problematic because almost all models will have a bias towards gaining power since it's such an effective meta solution.

The best way to use it is write a draft for an outline. Run it through and get chapGPT's thoughts. See if it can improve your outline. Then ask it to build your essay using your outline and to use brackets asking for you to input a source for specific claims throughout the paper. Go back ask it to change parts you don't like. Manual edit some other stuff and add in your in text citations wherever there are brackets and viola you have a factually correct paper that makes all the points you wanted to make in a third or less the time.

I don't think many jobs get replaced with this yet (maybe call centers and essay writers for college students though lol), that day will come but chatbots are still too error prone, too expensive, and can't work with all file formats yet (for instance chatgpt can't directly work with Excel although you can finagle it to do so in ass backwards way). I think this just makes people in fields that are first adopters more productive.

Not really. The market will be very small. Like ask yourself was it easier making a living as a handcrafted furniture builder (or just craftsman in general) before industrialization? Yeah because now the vast majority of the market but stuff made from an assembly line. Sure there's a very small group of elite furniture builders that stuck around but in general it was bad for the people who did that for a living. This is the assembly line for digital art.

I agree short term. Ten years from now though I think there's a case to be made that the market for digital visual artists is going to look a lot like the market for work horses. Very niche and not really a viable career option for aspiring creatives. Image models will be so good by then that it literally won't make sense to employ a human to do it.

In the economic sense. Where instead of hiring a professional artist even for high quality artistic products in a corporate environment it would be more effective to use a machine learning model unless the client specifically wanted something handmade for sentimental reasons. Right now we're aren't there yet because AI still struggles with a lot of stuff like hands and specificity but that won't always be the case.

Yeah that's ridiculous AI art is not better than humans right now but I would be careful with the argument it can't get better than us because it was trained on human data argument. We have models that perform at superhuman levels that were trained on nothing but human data. Really image generation and deep learning in general are young fields that are changing fast. It's very likely in the next few years we will see image generation systems approach human skill level.

Also stability AI is currently working on a completely licenced dataset in which they've either bought the rights to the art or it's copyright free. I don't think this will stop artist's anger one bit lol because ultimately it has nothing to do with perceived theft, that's just a rationalization and everything to do with the fear of replacement/unemployment or loss of the thing that gave them their identity.

Yo runescape was the shit lol. If I wasn't already busy playing genshin I might play it again for old times sake.

The Hitler excuse is extremely overplayed. The truth of the matter is far more complicated and nuanced. Russia tolerated nato expansion towards it's borders for 3 decades and putin for more than one after we promised several times in public to the Russians that we would not do that. No nuclear nation is going to tolerate a hostile aligned military aliance with nukes on its borders. Just imagine what the US would do if China convinced Mexico to join a military aliance...

Basically, this is not some fairy tale good vs evil simple story. This is the real world. We should have allowed Russia to have a nuetral buffer zone between it and NATO not for Russia's sake but for everyone's. The world is a safer place when nonaligned nuclear powers have some territory between them. Like what do you think the endgame is here? Russia legitimately sees this as a large national security threat not becuase of it's bullshit Ukrainian nazi propaganda but becuase it doesn't want to be contained/surrounded by nato. What does everyone think is gonna happen when you corner a nuclear armed country?

Edit: Why do idiots try to send a last message after they block you lol? I can't see your weak ass comeback if you block me.

Yep, most societies have difficulties planning for anything other than next quarter or election cycle. Cancerous shortemism is far FAR more prevalent and we see it's disastrous consequences daily.

Gonna get banned for wrongthink but... even from a non-longtermism standpoint he's still right though. How about the risk of nuclear war killing billions of the current population? Becuase that's what's being risked right now and if you point out that 2 nuclear powers are in a proxy war and that there's a real chance of a nuclear exchange happening, people think you are somehow deranged. This is our generations cuban missle crisis and there's basically no attempt at diplomacy. It's lunacy.

I take the longtermism stance but having said that there's very good arguments for us getting out of Ukraine to protect billions of current lives.

What's weird is I WAY prefer farmed salmon over wild caught.

>Yes? Have you see the USA’s immigration situation? Lol.

Yeah and guess what? It's absolutely dwarfed by the developing world. Most people in the developing world aren't putting in emmigration applications. Now would they choose to move if given the opportunity? Certainly a higher number of them would but I'd still guess not the majority because their language, culture, customs, traditions and family are more important to them. Most aren't trying to escape they just make do with what they have.

>Like sometimes shit hits the fan and it’s hard, but don’t act like people don’t actually try and emigrate from 3rd world countries.

I never said ppl don't try it's just that the majority don't. Do I need to go pull up emmigration applications statistics?

>Funny you bring this up because one of the pillars of the pro-AI, pro-Singularity rhetoric is the need for UBI. Which would very much be in line with your scenario here. AI would take all jobs, everyone has UBI, don’t have jobs, and we just … chill I guess? If we embraced the AI with no question - than yes you could make mudpies all you want.

Do we currently live in a world where all labor is automated? So why would you pay people to do socially useless jobs? It's one thing to give support to ppl who were displaced by AI and help them get new skills. It's another to start hiring switchboard operators again. Like I said it's absolutely comical.

>I agree. I just fear that it will destroy the incentives for the kids of the future to pick up a pencil.

Again then their hearts were never in the right place to begin with according to you.

>...some of the most insane art exists right now because of the entertainment industry, and a world where you could be monetarily compensated for your hard work.

This is kind of my point actually. Most professional art really isn't about self expression anyway. It's been so marketized and commodified that it's just a product. Very few people know a specific animator because it doesn't matter who made it to them, what their background is or what they went through in their childhood etc. It's literally a commodity in the true sense of the word just like corn or oil. If the monetary incentive went away human made art would be more about self expression again.