You don't know any real artists. Photo reference is used all the time. The ability to create something new based on that photo applies. The ability to handle paint and brush or a graphics tablet applies. Copying a painting line for line has been done and it is art, but cannot be sold as an original. And art under copyright cannot be copied without paying a fee.
AI art and creative content creation
- Thread starter overscan (PaulMM)
- Start date
- Status
You don't know any real artists. Photo reference is used all the time. The ability to create something new based on that photo applies. The ability to handle paint and brush or a graphics tablet applies. Copying a painting line for line has been done and it is art, but cannot be sold as an original. And art under copyright cannot be copied without paying a fee.
What is rare? It is common for artists interested in traditional painting to go to museums and copy originals. Any artist starting out copies, whether it's from comic books or paintings from books. The goal is enjoyment and learning. Kids start copying whatever they see because they are drawn to drawing things. There are artists who paint photo-realistic copies. Only a close examination of a painted original would reveal the difference between the photo and the painting.
Computers can't do anything. They have no knowledge. They can only process images.
Art is a communication medium. It is about sending a message from the artist to other human beings. It is a uniquely human endeavor. Machines are not human. Art programs fed billions of images can only characterize them, cut them up and reassemble them.
Hi Ed,
Just to clarify: It is rare to see an artist sit in a museum and see them paint right next to the painting they are copying. That is what I was talking about. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is indeed common to copy a painting/drawing/whatever while they sit at home, or in a studio or in a school. Happens all the time, indeed.
I agree with the rest of it.
That is exactly what these art-generating AIs are doing: taking existing art and learning.
This makes no sense. Pseudo Artist A copies a photo of a landscape, it's art. If Pseudo Artist B copies A's landscape painting, it's not art. But if Pseudo Artist B were to then turn around and make virtually exactly the same painting based on A's original photo reference, it's art again.
Nah. A landscape based on photo, copying another painting or directly via eyeball, it's art. Whether it's *good* art is another and irrelevant matter.
You use these rather sad little attacks in lieu of actual argument.
I can copy copyrighted art all day long if I choose. Thirty years ago I copied the Egyptian god of frustration that hung in Michael Garibaldis quarters and hung that crappy painting of mine on my dorm wall. Didn't pay anyone a dime, didn't get sued. And nor would I be in any reasonably sane timeline.
I'll only say that a man who worked in advertising went to museums, copied everything he could, learned from it and went on to have a successful career as a commercial artist.
You have a bad habit of cutting out the actual argument so that you can advance uninformed comments. Did I not write earlier that all artists start out by copying? Including kids copying from comic books? Your self-referential story avoids the point.
AI's aren't really capable of learning in the sense that we do. They keep rehashing the information they are fed into.
They can store tons of information, but are unable to make new connections between that information in a way we can.
Art is also a lot about being the first with a new idea. If A has a new idea, something nobody else thought of, then some people will call it art. An idea so new we should preserve it (in a museum). B comes along and likes it enough to copy it, is it art? No. It is not his idea that he puts on show, he is copying A. But imagine B walks through a museum and suddenly is inspired by a few random photos/paintings and gets a new idea, and creates something new. People will like it and it gets hung in a museum too. A is also in that museum, meets B and tells him: "So you went to that museum just like me."
Western art is built on the same cultural fundaments we all share, but some will see new things in the same things we all have experienced at one point. As Ed said, art is communication, we communicate stories and emotions..
In the mid-eighties I collaborated with the aeronautical historian Patrick Laureau in an investigation on the French aircraft that participated in the Spanish Civil War. We were working on the Casa de Velazquez, a cultural center sponsored by the French government. For diplomatic reasons the French were forced to organize exhibitions of Spanish "artists". On one occasion a huge painting of 6x3 meters arrived to be exhibited and I approached with curiosity while some respectful workers equipped with white gloves took it out of its protective case to hang it in the center of the exhibition. It was a white cloth, in the center the "artist" had stuck three sticks of 30 cm like those used inside shoes and a ball of pink paper. I've never been good at keeping my opinions quiet, I couldn't hold back my laughter and everyone looked at me as if I had sneezed into a temple. Then the director of the exhibition, a guy much smarter than me, gave me a lesson that I have not forgotten: art is only that which makes your hair stand up.
So-called "modern art," also referred to as abstract art, does not communicate. Only the artist who made it knows what it means. I used to read a "fine arts" magazine which I will not name. On the left side page was a photo of the art. On the right side was the artist explaining what it meant. There was a zero percent chance of anyone knowing what the artist intended.
Sadly, the art I was interested in when I went to college was not not promoted. It was called "representational art" since it depicted things anyone could recognize. So-called "real" artists did something else. Only people indoctrinated to like abstract liked it. I didn't. But that does not mean I bothered anyone about it when I was taking classes.
Sadly, the art I was interested in when I went to college was not not promoted. It was called "representational art" since it depicted things anyone could recognize. So-called "real" artists did something else. Only people indoctrinated to like abstract liked it. I didn't. But that does not mean I bothered anyone about it when I was taking classes.
Even the most abstract artists strive to make their signature perfectly legible.
If you are concerned about the consequences of AI for the art market, I think you should also consider the consequences of its use in other production systems. I believe that the main social impact of AI will be the possibility of acquiring perfect copies at an incredibly low price of objects and products that only the rich can obtain today: clothes, cars, boats, jewelry... Why not? It will be the second chapter of the social benefits of mass production that began with Ford. Can AI create perfect copies of the most expensive wines? or perfect synthetic copies of the finest leather or the most expensive animal skins? There are more people who should worry about the changes that are coming and start selling the piano as Woody Allen said.
You don't know any real kids.
Its going to revolutionize mathematics. Once it's programmed with all the rules if a particular branch of math it will do in seconds what takes humans years to do. I can foresee AI coming up with theorems the human mind isn't capable of. Perhaps physics too. People are wasting time in peanut butter sandwiches.
Not just math.
AI suggested 40,000 new possible chemical weapons in just six hours
Eventually, quantum computing will probably become practical. Hook up AI computing to quantum computing, and the thing will spit out *instantly* the formula for the most toxic chemical possible in this universe. Some idiot will then hit "print" on their chem-fabber, produce one single molecule of Chemical X, and wipe out the species.
shin_getter
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 1 June 2019
- Messages
- 1,044
- Reaction score
- 1,374
Art have not recovered from photography, as one can point at the acceptance of Post Modernism by the larger community.
Post-Post modern "Art" would likely be even more incomprehensible. Departments and interested persons would figure out new things to justify itself.
For those not invested in the scene, people will self serve to generate whatever is desired with ever improving tools, and service providers will be improving those tools towards whatever direction the users demand.
I mean this is all old hat, but historically manual operations that took Pick Up Artist tribal knowledge can be systemized and packaged, all it takes is a working business plan.
Perhaps low trust non-overlapping social circle mating strategy would just collapse on itself and everyone either go back to church or fail to mate altogether due to adverse selection.
A few generations down and there'd be no atheists assuming heritability in this trait.
Post-Post modern "Art" would likely be even more incomprehensible. Departments and interested persons would figure out new things to justify itself.
For those not invested in the scene, people will self serve to generate whatever is desired with ever improving tools, and service providers will be improving those tools towards whatever direction the users demand.
You think it is not the same for women? The stories of enterprising men using deception and automation to spin more plates is common in some circles already. It just seems feasible to have a bot suck up all the social media presences and use "analytics" to generate a personality profile and a chatbot that'd win.
I mean this is all old hat, but historically manual operations that took Pick Up Artist tribal knowledge can be systemized and packaged, all it takes is a working business plan.
Perhaps low trust non-overlapping social circle mating strategy would just collapse on itself and everyone either go back to church or fail to mate altogether due to adverse selection.
A few generations down and there'd be no atheists assuming heritability in this trait.
That possibility is terrifying, but it could also have happened in a lab accident 100 years ago, it could even have happened to Fleming. Science is a two-edged knife.Not just math.
AI suggested 40,000 new possible chemical weapons in just six hours
Eventually, quantum computing will probably become practical. Hook up AI computing to quantum computing, and the thing will spit out *instantly* the formula for the most toxic chemical possible in this universe. Some idiot will then hit "print" on their chem-fabber, produce one single molecule of Chemical X, and wipe out the species.
Lab accidents are an inefficent way to produce far-end-of-the-spectrum stuff. Computational systems that can imagine and test every conceivable combination... that's a dandy way to come up with the best/worst chemicals quickly. It's not that far from "come up with the most dangerous chemical" to "come up with the most dangerous virus." Something airborne, 100% contagious, , that crosses a number of species, that's 100% fatal... and has an incubation period of, say, a year or two, during which time it's utterly inconspicuous? That would the the chance to be extinction level. And all it is is the proper combination of DNA, something an AI system should be capable of dreaming up *now.*
An airborne AIDS that's more effective and can cross from humans to mice to pigeons? Yup, end of story. And unlike nuclear weapons, this is the sort of thing that should soon be accessible to virtually anyone. Just requires computational ability and the ability to process the raw materials into a virus... not easy, but it doesn't require anything like fissionable materials. I can see this being something that could eventually all fit in a desktop appliance.
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 3,025
- Reaction score
- 3,198
How about letting that dreaded/adored AI loose on conceiving and detailing a human qualified low cost, low risk, low environmental impact optimized launch vehicle, or on a crewed Mars return mission under the same boundary conditions for that matter? I'll believe it if/when I see it...
Last edited:
The AI Art Generator has turned into a Hippie.
What you're saying is that AI can be used by a guy who hates humanity to get his revenge by relatively simple means. Some time ago I read a fictional novel about a biologist who loses his wife to an IRA attack and decides to create a genetic virus that only kills all Irish women, then the island is quarantined inhabited only by men. It is a terrible possibility that can also be applied to the extermination of any ethnic minority that especially annoys a mentally unstable guy. Well, if that's the only thing we have to rely on our immune system, we would possibly survive some types immune to all kinds of poisons.
Certainly easier than by means of conventional, chemical or nuclear weapons. A single nut-genius would be doing *astonishingly* good to collect all the parts needed for a single nuke, or to steal one. And now he can destroy an entire city. *Maybe* trick the US/Russia or China/India or India/Pakistan or whoever into nuking each other. But worldwide destruction? Nah. But a 2050's emo kid with a brain, a grudge, a Jr. Evil Scientist Chem Lab and a connection to the internet? Whoever is in charge of stopping worldwide genetically engineered pandemics would have their hands full, 24/7.
SkyNet would do well to use biological weapons rather than nukes. Nukes are, from an AI's perspective, wasteful. Genetic weapons would be easy. If its goal was simple human extinction, that'd be a snap. If its goal was the extermination of all life... genetic weapons would make a fantastic dent in the planetary population of all living things; just wipe out the pesky humans first.
"The White Plague" by Frank Herbert.
As a kid, I used to think we already had this tech in the 70’s.
I was wandering about in a building and saw two Xerox type machines.
One was a massive unit, with a yawning chasm under the glass…the other a more modern variety. So little kid me thought the ancient “duplicator” was for 3D objects, the other “copier” just for paper.
I begged my parents to take me back so I could put my AMT Enterprise in the bigger one…under the glass…thinking the paper trays below is where the duplicate would be deposited.
Oh well. Now google sheets has chat’
Adding ChatGPT to Google Sheets | NextBigFuture.com
Life Architect AI has the Google Sheet script to access OpenAI’s new ChatGPT as gpt-3.5-turbo via API.
www.nextbigfuture.com
-for my fellow desk riders out there.
jsport
what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
- Joined
- 27 July 2011
- Messages
- 7,346
- Reaction score
- 5,091
US launches artificial intelligence military use initiative
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — The United States launched an initiative Thursday promoting international cooperation on the responsible use of artificial intelligence and autonomous weapons by militaries, seeking to impose order on an emerging technology that has the potential to change the way...
apnews.com
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 3,025
- Reaction score
- 3,198
*Fictional* is the operative term here...
Last edited:
Sure. Let's have computers destroy man or take over the world or both. And the people in charge of advanced technology are stupid? Or never watched the Terminator movies? It may surprise a few here but science-fiction writers have consulted for the military.
Computers have no desires or goals. So the ULTRA-AI destroys everything - then what?
Computers have no desires or goals. So the ULTRA-AI destroys everything - then what?
Then nothing. Bacteria and viruses and supernovae and tornadoes and cometary impactors also have no desires, but they'll kill you and everyone you love deader'n disco simply because that's what they do.
- Joined
- 1 May 2007
- Messages
- 2,557
- Reaction score
- 1,825
In my opinion humanity does not seriously consider the possibility of annihilation, most resolve their fears by relying on the protection of some supreme entity, but they will not accept that their life and future depends on technology until some major natural disaster occurs. Perhaps a month without power because of a solar flare or a city destroyed by an asteroid the size of a car would change enough people's minds to produce the necessary investments and begin in earnest the conquest of space.
Some time ago I read a science fiction short story about a guy who repaired machines called logicos, they were the size of a refrigerator (technology of the fifties). These devices were used as data banks to provide simple information to people and there was one in each house. One of these machines breaks down and the guy trying to fix it discovers to his horror that the damn machine answers any questions about sex, politics, or safe procedures for stealing or killing someone specifically without leaving evidence. I would like to read it again but I do not remember the title or the author. Can anyone help?
Shazam!
A Logic Named Joe
"A Logic Named Joe" is a science fiction short story by American writer Murray Leinster, first published in the March 1946 issue of Astounding Science Fiction. (The story appeared under Leinster's real name, Will F. Jenkins. That issue of Astounding also included a story under the Leinster pseudonym called "Adapter".) The story is particularly noteworthy as a prediction of massively networked personal computers and their drawbacks, written at a time when computing was in its infancy.Plot
The story's narrator is a "logic repairman" nicknamed Ducky. A "logic" is a computer-like device described as looking "like a vision receiver used to, only it's got keys instead of dials and you punch the keys for what you wanna get".In the story, a logic (whom Ducky later calls Joe) develops some degree of sapience and ambition. Joe proceeds to switch around a few relays in "the tank" (one of a distributed set of central information repositories), and cross-correlate all information ever assembled – yielding highly unexpected results. It then proceeds to freely disseminate all of those results to everyone on demand (and simultaneously disabling all of the content-filtering protocols). Logics begin offering up unexpected assistance to everyone which includes designing custom chemicals that alleviate inebriation, giving sex advice to small children, and plotting the perfect murder.
Eventually Ducky "saves civilization" by locating and turning off the only logic capable of doing this.
They'll be able to look up into the sky, see the smoking corpse of Mother Earth, and perhaps decide to do things a little differently. Humans do, from time to time, actually learn and adapt.
Sounds like fictional fiction to me.
What part? The "humans on other planets" part that you were already engaged in, or the "humans can learn" part?
And doesn't "fictional fiction" double-negative itself back to "factual?"
Sigh. I am a working editor. Fictional fiction is neither credible or entertaining and it's too far out for 99.99999999999% of the population. For good fiction, it's got to be entertaining and plausible.
- Status
