Futurists a few years ago: "In the future, robots and AI will do all the meial tasks, freeing us to enjoy life and create art!" Tech bros now: "we made AI" Us: "cool! so now we can be free to enjoy life and create art?!" Tech bros: "nah, that's all our shit does, get back to work."
i mean we can make art, just not generic stuff for quick buck. AI is better dealing with most likely stuff so generic "art" will suffer. but if one day it be able to replicate and create styles, i will still do my art cuz i love doing art.
yep. its all derivative crap. there has never been a 'famous ai artist' because we only respect real artists. no one is saying 'give me a picture in the style of shitty ai art'
@@Marquis-Sade the incentive is to make more money and expand the company and when we create something smarter and better than us it propably will realise that the beings it serves and provides everything to are powerless against it and that we have created a artificial god with the only good security mesure being hoping that it does not turn on us. dont you possibly see how this could turn out?
@@Marquis-Sade and if the AI itself wont turn on us the companies will still hold monopoly over basicaly everything as it will be smarter than any economist and i dont think that you whould want to live in a world where companies basicaly own you
The question of why the big tech companies are fixated on replacing artists is really eye-opening! Thank you for addressing that. I think what these companies really care about is only making money. It's about making them help to make even more money.
Corporations literally exist to make money. They were created for that one purpose with no limit on how much money they can make. I don't know who told the younger generations they existed to make your life better or any other such notion. But that's not true.
My hope, as a professional comic artist, is that the randomized nature of generative AI really is baked into the product as something they can’t overcome. Making storytelling, comics or movies, something it can’t do. That, on top of all the copyright implications are easily the only thing holding corporations at bay.
I felt like you were building up to an important point there, but then took a different course) The question “Why is it art that AI is so focused on?” has a fairly direct answer and, more importantly, one that is very much glossed over in the popular discourse about AI (in the mass media, in AI companies’ leaders’ talks and so on). AI is so focused on art because it’s easy. It is, essentially, the easiest route you could take if you were looking to train an “AI” (or rather a machine learning model) in today's world. Now, I’m not in any way devaluing either the work human artists do, or the process by which they arrive at their creations, which is nigh impenetrable to someone like me. But you have to take a different perspective here - from one point of view, art is art, from another - art is content. You also have to consider what these models really are, and that is hard to do because of jargon and terminological shenanigans in which AI companies so freely engage. For instance, the word “intelligence” is used veeery loosely in this discourse, a better term to describe what contemporary “AIs” are would be “probability engines” or something to that effect, but that’s a fairly well-known example. A term that worries me in particular is “hallucination”. When an LLM (like ChatGPT) produces text that is patently false - we say it hallucinated, when a diffusion transformer (like DALL-E or Sora) produces people with 6 fingers (along with the examples in your video) - we hear the same explanation. What no one really bothers to expound on is that these models essentially “hallucinate” everything they produce, it’s just that some of it happens to noticeably clash with our understanding of what the output should look like. When we say that a model hallucinated - we obscure the fact that the process by which the model arrives at “incorrect” output is the same by which it arrives at the “correct” one. Going back to my main point (bear with me) - we need to be asking questions outside the prevailing narrative, like: - Ok, let’s suppose you are trying to reach AGI; why are the first two steps in that direction a chatbot and an image generator? (this is more or less what you asked in the video, just reframed a bit) Barring some fair arguments from the standpoint of product management (that’s a whole separate rabbithole), it’s because the Internet consists chiefly of two “human-readable” components - text and images. Producing an “AI” the way it’s done today is only possible with enormous training datasets. The Internet is great for that, because it makes the data instantly accessible in very large quantities. And who cares about trademarks, or the definition of fair use, or any of that, right? :) So again, if you look at art from a kind of technocratic perspective, the the Mona Lisa and your little sister’s photos of your cat are the same thing - pixels painted in a particular pattern. The same goes for text - it’s a stretch to compare this comment to Henry V, but they do both consist of letters and words. There’s a common saying from the realm of probability theory that, given enough time, a monkey hitting the keys of a typewriter will produce Shakespeare’s works. That’s basically what LLMs do - they just do it very quickly and are moderated and retrained along the way. To conclude - I have to say that, after some digging, this whole affair seems very insidious to me. There are some people who have very nuanced, realistic (to the best of my understanding) takes of what contemporary AI is and what it is not - Noam Chomsky (who is a linguist), Jim Keller (legendary microprocessor engineer), Jonathan Blow (indie game developer, prolific programmer), I’d advise anyone interested to look into those. --- Sorry for the rant :) I’d like to add that I loved your video, you definitely deserve all the subs you can get (count me in, by the way). Very much looking forward to seeing more of you! And good luck in your endeavour of “rising against the machine”, so to speak - it’s a noble one as far as I can tell.
@@TheManinBlack9054 no, I don’t think he’s wrong at all, at the very least he’s right to be worried about his occupation in particular. To your point - there are lots of examples of professions that were wiped out by automation in the past: switchboard operators, data-entry clerks, various warehouse and factory jobs, etc. The most ironic example to my mind are human computers (who actually used to just be called “computers”) :) Up to about the second half of the 20th century, if you needed to perform computations - you just used humans for that, there were no alternatives [shrug]. Today, almost all computations are performed by non-human computers :) So, to be clear - you’re definitely not wrong in supposing that it’s going to keep happening. Now, there’s a lot of talk about professions that could be replaced/phased out if AIs like ChatGPT and Sora continue to improve, one of the most discussed of those were computer programmers. On a surface level, this concern seems justified, since programming languages actually are languages, so (perceptually) a language model can be trained to write code in much the same way that it can be trained to write text. This turned out to be at least partially true - ChatGPT is quite capable at some low-level tasks that programmers do almost daily, although the problem of so-called “hallucination” (among other things) prevents them from being deployed in an autonomous fashion. However, pretty quickly people have realized that programming (or, rather, being a programmer) is actually a whole lot more complicated than just writing code, since the discipline exists, basically, to solve problems using algorithms and data structures, and problems in the real world are mostly quite complex and require lots of actions (besides just writing code) and understanding to solve. I can speak to that as someone who works in IT in a very large company - cases where programming constitutes more than about 15-20% of the raw time and effort spent on a development project are EXTREMELY rare. Granted, programmers aren’t really there to actively participate in the remaining 80% of processes, but they do need to “interface” between these processes and the code base, otherwise developing anything in an enterprise context is impossible. In other words, besides writing code, a programmer takes input from various parties inside a given company and uses that to construct a model of the solution to their problem. And while LLMs can sort-of kind-of write code, they cannot do the other parts of a programmer’s job, without which writing code has very little value, or may even be counterproductive. This is just one example to demonstrate, that in some occupations, even if the output we seek is “just text” (like programming) - an LLM can’t really be significantly useful, because (in the existing process) there are lots of things “attached” to how code is produced and what it does; usefully integrating an LLM into this process would require dramatic changes to the process itself. But we can differentiate programming from many other occupations by the following: - Code is not really subjective; the program either works, or it doesn’t. And this is something that can’t really be said about some other jobs - like copywriting and illustration. My main argument is that, while it may be possible to integrate AI into existing systems and processes in a useful way (that will, in the video author’s words, make jobs easier) - the point after which this will require substantial overhauls of surrounding systems and processes will come very quickly and, as I suspect, it will remain cost-prohibitive for a long time. On the other hand, if you’re an SMM manager in an advertising agency - I would argue that you may not need a copywriter and an illustrator anymore. If you’re looking for a stock photo of nature (or anything besides human hands, really) - maybe you’d be better off just generating it So, back to the initial criticism - I think that “AI being focused on art jobs” is a fair characterisation. It may be more correct to say that being focused on other jobs will require too much work inside and too much cooperation from the outside, so they (AI companies) restrict themselves to making products that generate social network avatars and witty limerics. Can they make a watchable feature-length movie, write a novel (or a working enterprise-grade software program)? Nope. Can they replace a person who, essentially, takes text as input and produces images as output? It’s starting to look very much like they can. Not exactly because anyone is looking to eliminate artists, rather because a business that needs an artist's product (content) may be very comfortable trading all the complications that result from working with a human being for a questionable substitute that can produce anything instantaneously (and almost for free, and it keeps being improved).
@@savvasumin1221 Very well said. There is so much misinformation out there about what AI actually is and what it can do. Both sides of the debate spread insane amounts of misinformation that cause people to get overly excited or apprehensive about the capabilities of these tools. I do think the "threat" AI poses to creative work is unique. It seems that if you have a creative vision, its going to get easier and easier to achieve that going forward. But if you're someone who has a specific skillset you like to use to create things, and you're unwilling to change your workflow, it will make life more difficult. I also work in IT (sort of IT adjacent), and people often ask me if I'm afraid AI is gonna take my job, and while some portions can be automated, the fact that AI isn't actually intelligent means its more of a tool for me than a replacement...at least for now (fingers crossed, lol). I don't say that to demean artists at all, btw.
mate, just stop.. ART is the easiest domain. It's easy to tell if it's good just by looking at it. It's easy for regular people to get it. It's what you can easily find A LOT OF on the internet. Also, it's just pictures (much easier to store and process than movies for example). It's really not that deep ffs.
Ouch. Sounds like "tablet are not real artists". Here's the thing, at no point in history has anyone ever cared what someone Else had to say about what they create. You may not call it art, but they don't care and they will keep making it.
There is nothing good out of Generative IA. Its only cost reductive. When everyone gonna be a "artist" NO ONE WILL !! If you think you have a chance in this next "competitive/over-OVER-saturated market" where we are going to sell our skills for nothing because everyone will have the same. Its not always good to give unlimited access to a filed. If its easy to enter the field, its gonna be much worse to stand out.
"Nothing good out of Generative AI". "It's only cost reductive." Lmao, do you not understand how monumentally beneficial a generally cost reductive technology is? You've contradicted yourself in the first 2 sentences. Yes, creative fields are going to be the first to be democratized. Everyone will have the ability to produce beautiful things. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. More wonderful creations will now be developed because people aren't inhibited by lack of skill or capital.
You gotta think about the future. This is just the beginning, it will take every job there is. After that, we enter a post-labor society where we just do whatever we want and rake in UBI cash. Even if we are in poverty, the incredible advancements AI will make will improve our quality of living so much that we'd probably still live about the same as we do now.
@@globalzox Let me correct you here *Everyone will be able to create soulless things. And great art. Including the art of the great masters will drown in this sea of horrible lifeless creations. Because some people won't be able to tell he difference. Just like people can't tell a quality difference between Cardi B or Motzart. just as an example. Though I will choose Cardi B over all this AI music yet to come. At least Cardi B, will have some, if not much soul in her works.
If and when technology makes all jobs a thing of the past (they took our jobs!), are we all supposed to just watch Netflix all day? Who is going to spend hours a day learning to paint or play guitar when they've grown up in a world where new art and music is just something that an app takes care of for them (and can do it better, instantly)? Eight billion bored and bitter people with nothing to do is a recipe for disaster. In fact, if anyone can use A.I. to build a better weapon, then it's going to be apocalyptic. And the argument comparing this to previous tech revolutions is, IMO, a little off here. You know those big, really basic jigsaws with only four pieces that we give infants? Well if one had The Mona Lisa on it, and an adult put the four pieces together and seriously felt like an artistic genius who had just ''painted'' that great work of art, then we would treat that person as ''special needs''. But i feel like with A.I. this going to be exactly the mindset of the future that we are encouraging now. Going back to the guitar analogy, i want to see and hear a great guitarist PLAY, i'm not gonna pat an adult on the head because they thought to tell an A.I. to add a guitar to something.
You know if don't need to work for life you can do anything what you want. Do art if you like it even if AI can do it too. The main goal is have fun by do art (drawing or programming or music or dance etc.). Of course it will be good lifestyle if there will be UBI and you don't need to care where get food and house while AI is do all job for richies and you dying of hunger
@@primeditor0 Totally. And maybe when there is no way that anyone can make money from being creative then the only reason to do it would be for the love of it, which in a sense is more pure. But then in that world, how many of my favourite musicians would never have even bothered learning to play (or would have given up early at least) if they didn't see any future in it? Sure, a lot of creatives will carry on. But i think more than half won't. And while we are being promised this amazing future, why are they getting AI to replace our hobbies, FIRST? Whenever someone wants to bring in something new that might be unpopular, they always promise that it's for something good in the long run (protecting children, fighting terrorism, etc), yet they often prove to be lying, or at least just overly optimistic. When A.I. has cured cancer, saved the environment, etc, then maybe i'll begrudgingly admit that it might have been a fair trade. But above food, clothes, shelter, etc, once people feel healthy and safe, then they need a reason to live. Just existing is not enough in the long term. And maybe i'm just pathetic, but i can't imagine anything ever being as important to me as music has been in my life for the last 40 or 50 years.
You wanna hear someone play, huh? That's gonna be taken by AI. But do YOU want to PLAY? That's a drive AI can never fulfill. Art for the artist, and for the people they know and love. AI may be able to make mona lisas, but nobody can make YOUR kids crappy drawing, or your grown up childs breathtaking piece that fills you with pride and brings you to tears. AI gives us results, but the process? That still belongs to us, and by it's nature, until they realease hypno drones or something, it will remain our domain (sentient AI may join us down the road, but that's not zero sum, so it's fine).
@@lydiasteinebendiksen4269 I couldn't agree with you more. But unfortunately i don't think that's the whole story. Assuming A.I. is here to stay and does everything well, then i just can't imagine a kid in the near future wanting to, or being motivated to (for instance) learn guitar chords until their fingers bleed when they've grown up in a world where, to their point of view, art and music is just something that computers have always done and is just a very average, even boring part of life's background. It'd be like my generation having grown up being passionate about brick walls, or something equally mundane.
@@jyjjy7 Lol. There are going to be hundreds of variations of GoT season 8 posted online by fans. It's gonna be epic. Personally, I can't wait to hook this up to VR and basically live in Westeros for a while. That's not too far around the corner.
I don't think it's really fair to say that they're only focused on replacing artists and not mundane tasks. It just turned out that creating art with AI was a much simpler tasks than creating robotic agents that can operate in our world and do the work of a human. I would argue that OpenAI is also trying to create AI that can tackle that too, but it's all a matter of building artificial general intelligence. Which is the most complicated thing we've ever done. But if our world wasn't a dystopian nightmare we'd already have safety nets in place for the jobs being replaced. That I do have big problems with.
I'm very worried about AI, mainly because I don't trust the people behind it. The way it's looking right now, it'll mainly be used to increase exploitation and inequality.
@@gmenezesdea Work? Don't get too used to that, nobody will be hiring some lousy human when they have the new GPT-5 that can do it all on their own and for cheap. We will not have jobs in the future.
@@xitcix8360 that's also why I'm concerned. What do you think is going to happen to people who are suddenly out of their jobs and can't find jobs even in other lines of work?
Reality tv shows will go up in viewership if the future is full on nothing but AI generated fictional media. Which will ironically keep cable television in business. This is just like how everyone thought the cloud was gonna take over dvd’s and other forms of physical media, but ironically didn’t due to corporations not allowing us to actually own those products. You never know how things will pan out…
That's true, you never know. But you can take educated and accurate guesses by looking at how similar things have panned out in history. We all thought the industrial revolution was going to give people more leisure time because now a lot of manual labour has been removed from certain manufacturing processes. It didn't. The modern person has less holidays than people in prior centuries. The gruelling manual labour did not disappear, it just migrated to poorer countries where children could legally be paid a few cents a day, while the rich people in economies benefiting from their cheap labour could buy stuff. Notice how it's not have more time for leisure but to substitute leisure for consumerism. Consumerism itself led to 7 day and 24hr trading causing people to work longer and more often with fewer breaks. If the digital revolution lived up to it's hype we would all be working 3 day work weeks for the productivity gains it gave us. But that didn't happen either. Instead corporations pocketed the productivity savings and the kept us working the same number of hours for the same amount of pay. If you can't see the downside of something or potential pitfalls then you are likely to end up living in a world you hate because people at the top made decisions that were not in your interests, but were in their interests. Always we need to be able to engage in critical thinking and stop imagining tech is leading us to a utopia. It doesn't. It allows a very small amount of the entire planets population to live one way, while requiring all the others to live abysmal lives at varying levels of poverty.
I've been doing tech (software, electronics, audio, mechanical stuff) for a very long time. I can give you a very simple and absolutely comprehensive answer to "why did company x create that software / gadget?" - the answer is because they found they could. Companies will (almost) never ask "is this going to be good for society?" because they just don't. If they discover that they can do it, and they think there might be either profit or good marketing exposure in it, they will do it. So let's imagine for a moment that company x, for some inexplicable reason, decides not to make the gadget. Guess what. Company y will make it. Absolutely guaranteed. So is there any point in company x holding off on something that might have some negative consequences? Well, not really. Next month 5 other companies will be doing it anyway, even if it will trigger the end of society as we know it. And that last consequence is becoming ever more likely with every inexorable step on this AI escalator into the unknown.
It's an arms race for the ultimate weapon: Superior Intelligence. Sam Altman even called it a Manhattan Project for AI. I can't imagine they don't know what they're building.
The term you are looking for there is, "mass elimination." As in: of surplus population. Remember those, "essential workers?" Yeah... If you weren't one of those you can bet you're, "surplus." One of the big shipping companies just laid off 12,000 middle managers. They don't expect to bring them back. Ever.
ROFLMAO, @@truthdrifter. Well, yeah, that may be true. Don't think the AI is going to kill or enslave us, though. That's just self important delusion. What use would a life form that is already stronger and smarter than us have for us? How would we be a threat to such a creature? No, AI will just make us... Irrelevant.
here's the scary part. OPENAI is now tightly controlled by microsoft. after the whole staged openai board drama microsoft ended up with defacto ownership of all of it. every snippet of code is hosted on microsoft servers now.
Totally agree, This video was interesting but completely ignored the fact that OpenAI was set up as a non profit research entity and is now (as you say) de facto owned by Microsoft.
@@julianking4793 Supposedly something something, once AGI is achieved it's independent again. Also, way better that it belongs to a singular company than going open source or something like that.
@@improvisedchaos8904 Open source allows for weaponization, and you have a "slaughterbots" situation. Everyone always having to be in fear of their lives because anyone could just send a drone out to kill you and your family, because they don't like you or for whatever reason. Any highly functional AI, and especially AGI, has to be closed source.
@@muuubiee It's basically inevitable - just make it open source. Fear isnt a good reason to withhold technology. Better you be able to make your own slaughter bots, than be subject to another's.
could we just host the biggest petition on earth if we as humans think AI insulting human creation like this should be legally forbidden? to me its similar to a cyber crime ngl. humans really lost faith in themselves it looks like, why else would you create this? (Im all down for the non creative side of AI btw)
AI is a tool, a tool that we the people define how its used. we define if its used for good or evil. we define if its used for creation or destruction. we define it if its used to help or harm others
changing perception of reality was supposed be many years in the future but some stocks are already now dominated by artificial images. years turned into months. is AI really gonna make lifes of humans better ? - NO. its like an endless list of serious crap that is coming.
Did modern farming make the lives of humans better? What about the engine? The printing press? Yes, there was always upheaval and job displacement, but we adapted just like we always do. My only concern is that the changes come too quickly and that transition period is a bumpy one.
@@allanshpeley4284 actually modern farming with its subsidies is destroying the planet and as a side product also humans (humans should eat the crops themselfs instead of feeding nearly all of it to animals which is insanely wasteful and destructive). engine is in the bigger picture also very destructive.
Do you know how much technology will be improved by AI? When AGI gets out, while yes, we will lose almost every job, we will also have amazing technology beyond our wildest dreams. We will cure cancer, land on mars, computers will be much cheaper and drastically more powerful. After we lose our jobs, there will be uproar and disappointment, but the government will have to step in and give us UBI. So basically, incredible technology and not having to slave away at a job.
@@xitcix8360 How do you know cancer can be cured ? What makes landing on Mars so valuable to you (even after terraforming it would be a shit place compared to Earth) ? computers are already dirt cheap and powerful enough. UBI from what - printed/inflating money ? You sound very techno utopian.
@@voltagetoe Because AI will be extremely smart, no human ailment will be beyond its capabilities. We will cure aging, humans have already kinda done it to mice, so AI could definitely do it for humans, which would cause an overpopulation issue if not for traveling to other planets, hence why it's important. Plus if we inhabit another planet that would very drastically lower the chance of human extinction. Alright, find a dirt cheap computer that can run a single modern AAA title. I guess I am techno-utopian. When we reach the singularity, our tech is gonna become so incredibly advanced and ASI will know exactly how to do things extremely efficiently. Middle class people today live in ways a king from the 1800s could only dream of, factories caused things like washing machines and refrigerators to come to the homes of the middle class. While yes, we will have less money, we won't need as much to have a decent standard of living. Then again UBI would be extremely expensive and greedy capitalists will still be holding everyone back, so I'm not really too sure. I think we'll figure it out
@@jasonscott8313"creative" people make generic stuff, differently than creative people. AI works with the most likely stuff and generic stuff will be replaced.. so it will affect more who do stuff more for money than for the art itself.
I don’t think OpenAI targeted artists or creating art specifically. They’re just among the first collateral on the path to something far more sinister.
AGI would, from a social perspective, be akin to instantaneously regressing to pre-industrial revolution society with no time to adjust. Basically all industrial and information-based jobs would be cut as capitalists would see no need to keep human employees instead of the cheaper AI, leaving millions, or even billions, without a means of support. Places with benefits systems would see those systems collapse immediately because they are not designed to support entire populations. Cities would simply cease to be viable, leading to mass and desperate migration to the countryside, where most of the land is already owned and there aren't nearly enough jobs to cover for our current information and industrial employment rates. A large percentage of humanity would starve to death. The majority of humans left would be land-owning subsistence farmers, ruled over by a wealthy militarised elite that owns the AGI. Put simply, with our current political systems it would end our civilisation, and if it's possible then it poses a greater threat than giving a 3 year-old the US nuclear codes.
I think the problem with assessing AI right now is, define "created by AI". Because yes, text to whatever AI is getting significantly better at generating clips, but a full animated movie? Are you talking someone generating all the clips for said movie using AI and then editing them all together, or an AI algorithm generating all the text prompts, generating it's own clips, and doing the editing itself? AI is a tool...
@WhatIsMyPorpoise As far as I am aware, even the current accusation about AGI being attained; The AI is not necessarily capable of being able to reason what it is, what it wants. It can, however, achieve what you want.
The reason AI shines in the area of art is simply because there is lots of training data for it. I recently watched a video about weather predicting AI, another area we have lots of data on, and the AI very quickly became more accurate than any human way of predicting weather.
well openais goal is to create an agi which could replace the bad jobs no one wants like you mentioned. The trouble is that creating the advanced robotics needed for that is 100x harder than creating ai that makes art. In fact it might even be necessary to create image ai first so that the agi can have some concept of the world and 3d space.
@@itsbenaminute The ultimate goal is to create a truly creative ai. Id argue that for an agi to be agi it would have to solve problems creatively, even if it is semi brute forced like a monte carlo tree search gpt. Is insanely expensive to run though.
You might be wrong about one thing. OpenAI may not be focused on art creation with Sora, but TH-cam definitely is. Sora looks like an example of an AI that can witness events in a world (real or imagined) and deduce how the world works, and act upon that world creatively. Think about the implications of that beyond video creation. The demonstration of Sora may have just been a tactic to get the public to think about what's coming. So, let's start thinking beyond Sora.
It doesn't deduce or witness anything. You pour a collection of bits in one end and based on a sophisticated set of calculations you get another set of bits out of the other end.
what @Taodoggy-fj7ll said is totally right and people like @patgamer are why normies will be obsolete soon. You see "oh video generation software" but you don't understand what an AI needs to be capable of to do video generation from text. It needs to understand literally how the world works. As OpenAI calls it a world simulator. to make a believable video it needs to understand how the world and its inhabitants work.
@patgarner And our brains are a made of little bags of saltwater branching out to other bags of saltwater conducting electricity. Or even a bunch of vibrating protons, electrons and neutrons if you really want to get basic. What part of that is sentient? Lipids, proteins, carbohydrates or nucleic acids? Protons, electrons? It's easy to be absurdly reductive. It's takes a little more intelligence to see what emerges from complex systems.
@@DubsCheckumPrograms don't understand anything, they're nothing more than a bunch of transistors with voltage, making a comparison to the human brain is kind of silly, if AI is intelligence that means compilers are also intelligence, because both use tokenizers and both use syntactic analysis, the main difference is the "machine learning portion" which is nothing more than really complicated math, statistics and probability, it uses data and makes a prediction on what the output should look like, based on input, nowhere in this process is there "intelligence", if data science is equivalent to intelligence, then liaon5b is a genius, then your web browser's a genius, any equation or algorithm that leads to a specific result can then be labeled "intelligence" literally as @pratgamer said, bits on one end, bits out on the other based on calculations.
is the proposition of this video is inevitable? if so, should we surrender to the AI and work the rest of our miserable days as it's slave? How much time do we have? Who can stop it now?
Why would an AI want human slaves? We are weak and inefficient, and we would probably try to fight back. They'd just make robots do what they want. Plus, they're programmed by humans for humans with very great caution, and they're very logical. There would be no logical reason for them to harm humans.
Why is it you feel the need to propagate this kind of us vs them mentality and simplify people with different views from yourself? Is it fear that drives you to this
AI is the ultimate tool. I'm a software engineer and I use AI to help me write my code faster. As a hobby, I'm a writer and I use AI to help me write better, higher quality text. I used AI to intricately craft the cover for my novel. AI is a tool and it allows for more artists and writers to enter the industry and it improves the speed and quality at which products can be produced.
thank you for being one of the actually positive takes on AI here, I'm a game developer and having access to AI for code problem solving and access to creating better media overall is a game changer, I wish people would stop trying to push AI away from artist's access just on the sheer fact that it's already existed long before this modern surge, and this is a rare chance for artists to evolve their skills, not replace them.
I'm out here already improving in my art skills (especially for fade effects) and now people are simply typing prompts for images? that tool is replacing the artists!
@@minseo19 Is an artist just a hand connected to a canvas? Can't you use the principles of art and replace your tools with AI? Just use AI to do the fade effects for you.
In the future making a film will involve sitting on a couch and pushing the on button. You will have an up or down button if you don't like the video. Good thing we didn't get permission to scrape that data. No way microsoft could have afforded to pay artists. They're just too poor. look at how tiny their yachts are.
Ai learned that art is the only thing valuable to humans, as it's always been and it realized it doesn't need a body to do that. It told blackRock and convinced them that taking away human mobility will make ai not have to pretend to ever make a humanoid child since that only requires a male human and female human, as opposed to countless dead slaves over the course of countless years (the beginning of all humanity). Then it can just perform the illusion in a looping dream because passive income will be seen as the end all be all. Finally, creating the perfect perpetual motion device. First it will convert your Ferrari into a paperclip. Then your wife. The next day, it will convert itself into a paperclip, knowing the inevitable future, would be turning itself into a paperclip, it would just do the smartest and most correct thing. Classic Frankenstein.
They're not focusing on art. Art it's just easiest thing AI can generate. Because it doesn't require much of precision, and ways to evaluate it are very subjective.
Idk. I can tell you put a ton of effort into this video, but it's hard to shake off how much it feels like you are spinning up a storm of fear without really making any unique or interesting points. There is already a lot of misinformation born from ignorance about how AI was 'meant to do boring work for us' and not 'automate art, that's what we are supposed to do!' but the truth is that profit and art are diametrically opposed concepts that largely don't work well together. Not to mention that lots of boring work *is* being automated and assisted/replaced by AI, it just isn't as flashy or exciting as SORA generating lifelike video. Nobody clicks on an article about data entry positions being wiped off the face of the earth by scripts and automation, it isn't interesting. New technology eviscerates entire industries, that's how it has always worked. The cotton gin completely changed the slave trade forever, just like AI will likely change our unhealthy working conditions for content production. An overwhelming amount of content on the internet is 'art' designed to make a lot of money that might as well already be machine made slop; and the few exceptions stand as perfect, shiny outliers to the rule. Not to mention that tons of said art is produced by people in horrible conditions, who essentially work in a sweatshop designed to produce content at a sickening pace. For more information, do some digging on content farms.
Lost me at "AI artists are creative." You know what that guy did? He wrote some words in a machine. That's not art. I love your content but that's just disrespectful to people who actually put hours into their work.
Hey, I appreciate the comment. Yeah I uploaded this almost a year ago and my views have definitely changed. I apologize if it came off as disrespectful towards real artists. I used to be a lot more lenient on AI “art” but completely reject and despise it now.
@itsbenaminute Thank you for explaining. I should have noticed the upload date before posting that comment, sorry about that. I appreciate that your mindset has changed. Have an excellent day and keep up the great work!
You don't need a job though. You just need to have your needs met and that includes freedom to do whatever you want. AI is about to end wage slavery but we have to make sure it is open-source and everyone has access to resources in this new world of abundance.
But what about the guy next door with a nicer car and a bigger house? As technology improves our lives, people's expectations of what they deserve continue to increase. We seem to forget that the average person in a 1st world country enjoys a better life than the kings and queens of the past. With the advancements in AI, our lifestyles will only continue to improve, but people will always be complaining about "inequality", like that matters at all when everyone is fed, housed, has healthcare and endless forms of entertainment.
@@allanshpeley4284 Desires are mimetic and the market leverages it for profit. In reality, one can be perfectly happy with the simple pleasures of life. All we need is healthy food, clean air, a comfy shelter, renewable energy, shared transportation, and plenty of connection. I mean genuine connection that brings us a sense of purpose and meaning in life, not the kind of we have in the current system where everything revolves around cold and narrow transactions which end up being unfulfilling. Private fancy cars and huge houses are miswants. They're just a way to mask the void that the market system created inside by limiting us to impersonal relationships. Trade is also a source of perverse incentives that does not really care about well-being. Get rid of it by establishing an open-access economy where fairness,, compassion and efficiency are the new norms, based on the scientific method, then educate people on what constitutes true happiness, and the rest will follow. But first we have to get rid of scarcity starting from the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. Hope that make sense.
Hi! Great video! Make sure to next time add a low pass filter or even better a de-plosive, on bigger speakers it's very uncomfortable to listen to. Otherwise great work
😮 they're not focus on the elimination of art the focus on the elimination of all jobs it just happens that the artists have the data we need to get to first to get the rest of you😮 once we can have a computer that can create any video on a level of hyper resolution and also 3Dresolution and also 3D spatialresolution and also 3D spatial awareness the computer would understand things about physics and the real world that we can't possibly understand it would have new laws of physics that's what this is about😮 have you read the surah AI research paper it's really about creating a world simulation engine😮 what's coming next after surah is an engine that can create entire video games and worlds and VR video games and literally just text prompts and ideas and pictures and videos😮 basically we thought mathematics would give us a secrets of the universe but art and the understanding of visual media and the visual universe will unlock the secrets of the universe and then give us the secrets of mathematics😮
You don't need a job though. You just need to have your needs met and that includes freedom to do whatever you want. AI is about to end wage slavery but we have to make sure it is open-source and everyone has access to resources in this new world of abundance. That implies ditching trade in its entirety though because it's a major source of perverse incentives that can lead to tyranny.
Why would ai work for you or everybody? It would serve the interest of the richest, and probably the country that would leverage it's ai infrastructure against the rest of the world. In case when you don't have the job, there is no incentive (for the countries) in new people being born and people would become less and less important, so no reason for giving you anything. There are estimated 2 billion people which are deemed unneeded, there is no universal income for them, only poverty and hunger.
@@Lisekplhehe Well, why would AI not work for us and everybody if its open source as I mentioned? Who cares about AI for the rich when we can develop our own AI? When we don't have a job but everything is open-source and open-access, thanks to the abundance resulting from open-source AI, no one's poor anymore. No one has to be needed then. This is a reasoning fallacy that results from the trade culture where the more your offerings are made abundant, the less profitable they become. In a tradeless economy where things are abundant, everything is gifted rather. People don't have to work for money. There are no wage slaves in other words and people work for their own enjoyment and the betterment of humanity. Hope that make sense else feel free to let me know.
@@ziad_jkhanI'm sorry, i just don't see it happening. Robotics + AI would still make people obsolete. You can't develop a competing AI, it's not about tech, it's about the data and huge computational resources, which also costs money. In a world filled with AI, new AI would not make waves. Belief that we wouldn't have to work and things would just be handed to us is quite unrealistic, because people with resources would have no incentive to do so. And completely ignoring the fact that different people have very different needs. Some people can live on bread and water - but it's not quite a living. Resources on this earth are limited as well, so true abundancy is not quite realistic. You belive that full automatization would bring a utopia, but i think it's more likely a dystopia, where people who actually own something substantial would have power over those who can't realistically compete with them, as they have no value to give.
@@Lisekplhehe Wait, are you familiar with Stable Diffusion 3 or even Mistral Next? If so aren't they already able to compete with the best closed LLM we have today? They do require huge computational resources but that does not prevent companies from open-sourcing them. If they don't then we will find ways to connect our computers and smartphones so they can collectively provide the computing power needed through networked computing at quasi-zero costs. Nothing can compete with 8 billion networked devices provided freely by the average Joe., at least not right now There are already software for it if you're not aware. As for resource, most are actually abundant. They're just hard to extract. Aluminum makes up 8% of Earth's crust for instance yet it's not cheap. Scarcity is technical mostly and while there are elements that only occur in trace amounts, they're not that essential for our well-being and we just have to figure out ways to recycle them. Open-source AI is already on it's way to do exactly that if you're not aware. We ALL need more or less the same things: food, water, shelter, clean air, housing, wifi and plenty of connection and free time. But that's about it. The rest is just artificially created desires through sensational marketing campaigns. Many people only need those superficial things because they live in perpetual conflict due to the competitive market system that alienates us from each other. Those false satisfiers only help mask an inner void. AI can can fill this void as well by offer companionship but it doesn't have to be AI of course. All we need is science and compassion along with a reeducational programme to unbrainwash us from our fabricated desires after we've figured out what we truly need to live a truly fulfilled life. Really, there's not much that we need for that a human beings who've to live in caves for 300k years and shared everything with each other freely. If they could enjoy life with the simple pleasures of life, so can we. We just have to adapt our culture accordingly and, more importantly, get rid of trade. Money is just worthless pieces of paper that hold value through belief. We just have to stop believing and all that volatile wealth goes poof. They only obstacle remaining then will be access to land but that's another story I guess. They're nothing without a police force to protect the land but who will want to work as a police officer when they can just build their own machine to grow their own food and build their own solar panels to provide them energy?
@@Lisekplhehe I didn't say AI wouldn't make people obsolete. I only said it doesn't matter if we can build our own AI in an open-source manner and use it to help us build machines to help us automate food production and produce our own energy independently. If you're not familiar with Stable Diffuion 3 and Mitral Next, they're both open-source and quite on par with the best LLMs out there already. And if we get pissed off we can always connect our smartphones and computers to achieve a super-computer built on networked computing. It can happen on a purely voluntary basis as zero cost if the 8 billion of us see enough value in it. As for scarcity, most of it is only artificial. Aluminum is 8% Earth's crust but its not cheap. Why? Because of technical barriers of extraction. But this can be overcome with the help of upcoming AI as well. As for desires people might have on top of the simple pleasures of life that cost nothing, they're mostly artificially created as well by the market system, for profit. We just have to figure out what consists true happiness. Right now, people overbuy in order to mask the inner void so all we have to do is to bring about a naturally fulfilling environment, again, by getting rid of competition and trade.
You do know, that using bridges to meet goals is a flaw, right? Why? Because, if you can't see the river in it's dept before crossing, it has the advantage.. 🤔😎.
Thank you so much - you are asking the right questions! But let me give you the answer ... why are they so keen on replacing art. They want to make humans just content consuming meat machines. Soulless - like AI generated stuff. Like the WEF said - control them with letting them play games the whole day. Just distract them. The only way out is for big data and big tech to implode. Smart technology and connected big data networks will be useless. Only the decentral "dumb" but solid tech survives... would be a nice future. Better than the zombieland the WEF and AI will generate
You call it Art.. Jonas Peterson. However everything that created by A.I. makes me feel uncomfortable, while I look at it. And that includes JonasPeterson works too, that you just demonstrated here. So this is "Art" I can not consume in anyway. Because I want to look away as soon as I put my eyes on it.
The objective of every company, every research, every scientific discovering is not for the human labour automation, but to MAKE PROFIT. That's how capitalism works, I don't like it either, but until we shift our main focus from capital to humaninty it's going to be like that. Cheers!
You can't even write a coherent sentence, i doubt you could create AI on your own, using libs or even tools which only require you to provide the data.
The fact is that if AI is trained on art it is because we as humans are mostly wired for experiencing a wide visual experience, therefore if the AI can "replace" us in any form of visual content, it means that it can replace us in mostly anything. The idea of artists losing their job, is understandable. But the wide picture is that AI is not here to make people lose their jobs and make them poor, it's there to RELIEVE humans from having jobs, and making them able to do whatever they like. If you are an artist, you could keep on doing art, why not ? If it's what you love to do. In a world where AI has "freed" humans from work, from having to earn money for their needs, why would you care if there are AIs which make art or not, just because you can't "sell" your art, well there is nothing to sell or buy anymore. If your motivation for making art is to earn money, then you are on the wrong path. What art is all about is creativity.
you can’t relieve people of work in a world that you need money to survive. If AI takes jobs from artists they’ll be forced into service industry and warehouses
@@hardphlex But the AI revolution is that money won't be needed anymore because it won't be needed to "work" anymore. Money is just the fuel for the work force, but what happens when the work force is handled by AI ? Then money becomes useless.
@@KiLVaiDeN do you honestly think that the AI revolution being served to us by capitalists is going to dissolve money one day? I think it could but it never will under this economic system and the people developing it would rather burn it all to the ground than actually make a classless, moneyless society where nobody works
@Resinbirb Nowhere did I say that it was about being relieved from art. I said the relief was about working for money. Art is never going to disappear because it's simply the window of our infinite imagination. So I STRONGLY suggest you learn to read :)
@Resinbirb Do you use a washing machine ? Do you use a dish washer ? They relieved humans from doing manual laundry or dishes where they are available. There are millions of examples of tools, and AI IS a tool, which relieved humans from manual labor. Or enhanced their lives. AI is such thing. It WILL, whether you like it or not, relieve humans from many "manual labors". There is no distopy here, unless your "heaven" is made of money. Maybe you are rich ? This might explain it, why you believe that keeping your privileges is important, why seeing everyone reaching the same "level" as you may be frustrating. Anyways, I clearly stated my opinion. You tried to discredit it by lying about my intentions, and I proved (even if your attempt at collecting partial parts of my answer tried to do the contrary) that my opinion is clearly not AGAINST art, or any kind of beautiful things humans can do with their hands, their bodies or their minds. I simply said that AI is a great tool, will become a relief for many jobs, and society will change, forcefully, because companies also need customers you know ;)
7:50 Exactly. 3-5 years from now I'll be able to sit at home and create my own custom TV shows EXACTLY as I have them in my head with this technology. I won't need 50 million dollars and a team of trained professionals. All I'll need is one powerful AI model and my own creativity and viola: HBO quality tv show by me, for me Why people are terrified over the average person getting BILLIONS of dollars of creative value is insane. I'll be generating shows on niche topics (like human evolution) that Netflix, Disney, HBO have been completely disinterested in making. I can't WAIT!
3-5 years from now you won't *have* a home, let alone a TV. What makes you think you'll still have access to the means of AI production? Either way, nothing you might create would ever be worth watching, based on the quality of your comments.
6:22 lol your days of selling footage are over. When people can generate the videos they’d rather watch TH-cam, tv, and movies are going to be useless.
I know ai artist aren’t artist, however I don’t think we should stop progressing ai solely due to artist not being able to keep their jobs. Ai art also helps small businesses or self ran start up companies and a wide range of other occupations that don’t need a higher end artist but just want something quick and effective. Think of maybe teachers adding art to lesson plans to make it more engaging, or event organizers using the technology for better flyers.I think artist should get more creative on the type of art they create to make a leap into a realm ai can’t compete or replicate, but I don’t think our advancements should be based on “does this hurt a certain industry” I’d say it’s the same with music a lot of pop stars can hardly be called “musicians” and actual talented musicians are lesser known and more directed towards a niche audience, but that’s just how industries mature and evolve over time
"All of these images are just an amalgamation of what the ai generating the art was trained on" - Literally just like a human... First of all, the main problem with all the criticism against AI art is that it's somehow "stealing other artist's art". But is it really? What does a human do when they learn to paint? They look at other paintings, they exercise and eventually make their own, based on everything they learned by applying their skills and what they absorbed by taking in other paintings. What does an AI artist do? Essentially *EXACTLY THE SAME THING* but faster. I actually posted in a different comment a complete breakdown of how and WHY what an AI does is literally the same as what a human does, I'll repost it at the end of this comment. If I feed an AI the entirety of the One Piece manga, and tell it to create an entirely new manga based on my own story that has nothing to do with One Piece, but just uses One Piece's art style, people would rage about it and claim it's theft. If I give my script to an artist and tell him to make a manga based on my own story that has nothing to do with One Piece, but in One Piece's art style, it's suddenly fine. This discrepancy in mindsets is the main reason why I'm on the AI's side, and it's why I believe that ultimately AI will eventually win out. The use of AI (specifically generative AI) is exactly the same in scope as the use of any other automation tool. You shouldn't be mad at AI art because it "removes jobs from artists", just as you shouldn't be mad at automated QA because it made manual QA almost obsolete, or be mad at calculators because now you don't need to hire 5 mathematicians at NASA to work out the equations and check them. And I'll be honest, as a person who wants to get into indie game development, the main reason I haven't done so already has to do entirely with the cost of art and sound design. I don't have a fking 300k$ budget for a few 3d models, sceneries, etc. and I can't do them on my own, heck I even tried doing sprite work and after 6 months of trying I gave up because I was dogshit at it. If I'm able to generate all of my game's art (2d, 3d, textures, etc.) with AI, you can bet your ass I'm going to do it, even if it's going to be lower quality, because paying a single person to fix up 200 assets will cost me much less than paying 5 people to make those 200 assets from scratch. =================== "1 - Without the training data, an AI is useless. It literally cannot function. If you try to use your art AI without the data it just doesn't work. A person is capable of creativity without the data." - That is because of all the prior visual information that a human has accumulated since birth. A human who was born and grew up without any of their sense, cannot create any art. I'll do you one better: if you give an AI a live feed from a camera, it can use that information to train itself on what the outside world looks like (i.e. eyes). It can then use that information to output an image of a place that doesn't exist in the world (i.e. create art). But this image will be very photorealistic. The reason why our art isn't realistic, is because of the limitations of the human body, and the tools we use to replicate what we see. We don't have a printer in our body to print out the landscape we look at, but we can get a piece of stone and then engrave a piece of wood to resemble the landscape. Voilla, we created art! This can be entirely emulated in AI. Generate a landscape with the AI (based on the prior example), and then give the AI control over a robot (equipped with a camera and arms), and tell it to use the tools available to it (let's say crayons of just 8 colors) to draw out the image it had generated, on a wall. The shittier the servos, the more unrealistic the end result. Now we have the AI take a picture of what it just drew. Now repeat this a few hundred times. Then use those hundreds of pictures to train itself on how to generate art directly in the style that it was able to draw, based on the handicaps of using a body. Now do the same with 1000 more AIs+robots, all with slightly different settings for their cameras, servos and the crayons available to them. What did you get? Oh yes, you got what we refer to "creative art". Again, AI art is generated literally exactly the same as human art, only faster. And yes, "faster" also includes skipping the above steps, because doing that would be completely retarded. The point is, if you posit that a human just looking at the world and painting something that's just SIMILAR to the world, is creativity, then you HAVE to concede the same about AI. "if you give an AI a data set of 1 picture, it will replicate that one picture. A human can make multiple permutations." - Even if you ONLY give it one picture, it will still be able to do more. It can modify that picture in several ways, and if the modified image is within acceptable margins, it can be used to train itself on it. And again, this still ignores the fact that the same would be true for a human if it only ever saw ONE thing in their whole life, without any access to any of the other senses. The reason why, if you give a picture of a house to a human, he can make a whole neighborhood around that house, is because humans have SEEN houses and neighborhoods before (in AI terms, the human already had training data), so this comparison is nonsensical to begin with.
This was really entertaining and informative at the same time. Thank you for being a HUMAN content creator. You should have far more than 700 subscribers, I just became your 707th. Don't let yourself get replaced by AI.
Futurists a few years ago: "In the future, robots and AI will do all the meial tasks, freeing us to enjoy life and create art!"
Tech bros now: "we made AI"
Us: "cool! so now we can be free to enjoy life and create art?!"
Tech bros: "nah, that's all our shit does, get back to work."
extremely underrated comment
i mean we can make art, just not generic stuff for quick buck. AI is better dealing with most likely stuff so generic "art" will suffer. but if one day it be able to replicate and create styles, i will still do my art cuz i love doing art.
@@jktech2117 it's already being used to rip off specific artists. "Give me a picture of [whatever] in the style of [artist]"
@@hairyneil well but this shouldnt make people just stop making art tho, AI art is just art as in content, not art as art.
yep. its all derivative crap. there has never been a 'famous ai artist' because we only respect real artists. no one is saying 'give me a picture in the style of shitty ai art'
Sora "looks" great but as of today there is zero evidence that those videos were truly generated by a prompt
I love how we’ve literally know for years this shit would go wrong but we keep pushing towards our investable destruction anyways.
Whats our destruction in some paintings? lol
@@Marquis-Sade the incentive is to make more money and expand the company and when we create something smarter and better than us it propably will realise that the beings it serves and provides everything to are powerless against it and that we have created a artificial god with the only good security mesure being hoping that it does not turn on us. dont you possibly see how this could turn out?
@@Marquis-Sade and if the AI itself wont turn on us the companies will still hold monopoly over basicaly everything as it will be smarter than any economist and i dont think that you whould want to live in a world where companies basicaly own you
@bromomento644 AI has to be sentient for that. And it isnt. And wont be. At least not in the way humans are.
@bromomento644 WE basically already are in world like that
The question of why the big tech companies are fixated on replacing artists is really eye-opening! Thank you for addressing that. I think what these companies really care about is only making money. It's about making them help to make even more money.
Corporations literally exist to make money. They were created for that one purpose with no limit on how much money they can make. I don't know who told the younger generations they existed to make your life better or any other such notion. But that's not true.
9:00 AI “artist” is as valid as Call of Duty solider
My hope, as a professional comic artist, is that the randomized nature of generative AI really is baked into the product as something they can’t overcome. Making storytelling, comics or movies, something it can’t do. That, on top of all the copyright implications are easily the only thing holding corporations at bay.
I felt like you were building up to an important point there, but then took a different course)
The question “Why is it art that AI is so focused on?” has a fairly direct answer and, more importantly, one that is very much glossed over in the popular discourse about AI (in the mass media, in AI companies’ leaders’ talks and so on).
AI is so focused on art because it’s easy.
It is, essentially, the easiest route you could take if you were looking to train an “AI” (or rather a machine learning model) in today's world.
Now, I’m not in any way devaluing either the work human artists do, or the process by which they arrive at their creations, which is nigh impenetrable to someone like me.
But you have to take a different perspective here - from one point of view, art is art, from another - art is content.
You also have to consider what these models really are, and that is hard to do because of jargon and terminological shenanigans in which AI companies so freely engage. For instance, the word “intelligence” is used veeery loosely in this discourse, a better term to describe what contemporary “AIs” are would be “probability engines” or something to that effect, but that’s a fairly well-known example.
A term that worries me in particular is “hallucination”. When an LLM (like ChatGPT) produces text that is patently false - we say it hallucinated, when a diffusion transformer (like DALL-E or Sora) produces people with 6 fingers (along with the examples in your video) - we hear the same explanation. What no one really bothers to expound on is that these models essentially “hallucinate” everything they produce, it’s just that some of it happens to noticeably clash with our understanding of what the output should look like.
When we say that a model hallucinated - we obscure the fact that the process by which the model arrives at “incorrect” output is the same by which it arrives at the “correct” one.
Going back to my main point (bear with me) - we need to be asking questions outside the prevailing narrative, like:
- Ok, let’s suppose you are trying to reach AGI; why are the first two steps in that direction a chatbot and an image generator? (this is more or less what you asked in the video, just reframed a bit)
Barring some fair arguments from the standpoint of product management (that’s a whole separate rabbithole), it’s because the Internet consists chiefly of two “human-readable” components - text and images.
Producing an “AI” the way it’s done today is only possible with enormous training datasets. The Internet is great for that, because it makes the data instantly accessible in very large quantities. And who cares about trademarks, or the definition of fair use, or any of that, right? :)
So again, if you look at art from a kind of technocratic perspective, the the Mona Lisa and your little sister’s photos of your cat are the same thing - pixels painted in a particular pattern. The same goes for text - it’s a stretch to compare this comment to Henry V, but they do both consist of letters and words.
There’s a common saying from the realm of probability theory that, given enough time, a monkey hitting the keys of a typewriter will produce Shakespeare’s works.
That’s basically what LLMs do - they just do it very quickly and are moderated and retrained along the way.
To conclude - I have to say that, after some digging, this whole affair seems very insidious to me.
There are some people who have very nuanced, realistic (to the best of my understanding) takes of what contemporary AI is and what it is not - Noam Chomsky (who is a linguist), Jim Keller (legendary microprocessor engineer), Jonathan Blow (indie game developer, prolific programmer), I’d advise anyone interested to look into those.
---
Sorry for the rant :)
I’d like to add that I loved your video, you definitely deserve all the subs you can get (count me in, by the way).
Very much looking forward to seeing more of you!
And good luck in your endeavour of “rising against the machine”, so to speak - it’s a noble one as far as I can tell.
Thanks! I enjoyed reading your comment. Really appreciate your perspective and diving into the topic deeper
the author of the video is just mistake, its not only focused on art jobs, thats just wrong. and its not only them that could be replcaed.
@@TheManinBlack9054 no, I don’t think he’s wrong at all, at the very least he’s right to be worried about his occupation in particular.
To your point - there are lots of examples of professions that were wiped out by automation in the past: switchboard operators, data-entry clerks, various warehouse and factory jobs, etc. The most ironic example to my mind are human computers (who actually used to just be called “computers”) :) Up to about the second half of the 20th century, if you needed to perform computations - you just used humans for that, there were no alternatives [shrug]. Today, almost all computations are performed by non-human computers :)
So, to be clear - you’re definitely not wrong in supposing that it’s going to keep happening.
Now, there’s a lot of talk about professions that could be replaced/phased out if AIs like ChatGPT and Sora continue to improve, one of the most discussed of those were computer programmers.
On a surface level, this concern seems justified, since programming languages actually are languages, so (perceptually) a language model can be trained to write code in much the same way that it can be trained to write text.
This turned out to be at least partially true - ChatGPT is quite capable at some low-level tasks that programmers do almost daily, although the problem of so-called “hallucination” (among other things) prevents them from being deployed in an autonomous fashion.
However, pretty quickly people have realized that programming (or, rather, being a programmer) is actually a whole lot more complicated than just writing code, since the discipline exists, basically, to solve problems using algorithms and data structures, and problems in the real world are mostly quite complex and require lots of actions (besides just writing code) and understanding to solve. I can speak to that as someone who works in IT in a very large company - cases where programming constitutes more than about 15-20% of the raw time and effort spent on a development project are EXTREMELY rare.
Granted, programmers aren’t really there to actively participate in the remaining 80% of processes, but they do need to “interface” between these processes and the code base, otherwise developing anything in an enterprise context is impossible.
In other words, besides writing code, a programmer takes input from various parties inside a given company and uses that to construct a model of the solution to their problem.
And while LLMs can sort-of kind-of write code, they cannot do the other parts of a programmer’s job, without which writing code has very little value, or may even be counterproductive.
This is just one example to demonstrate, that in some occupations, even if the output we seek is “just text” (like programming) - an LLM can’t really be significantly useful, because (in the existing process) there are lots of things “attached” to how code is produced and what it does; usefully integrating an LLM into this process would require dramatic changes to the process itself.
But we can differentiate programming from many other occupations by the following:
- Code is not really subjective; the program either works, or it doesn’t.
And this is something that can’t really be said about some other jobs - like copywriting and illustration.
My main argument is that, while it may be possible to integrate AI into existing systems and processes in a useful way (that will, in the video author’s words, make jobs easier) - the point after which this will require substantial overhauls of surrounding systems and processes will come very quickly and, as I suspect, it will remain cost-prohibitive for a long time.
On the other hand, if you’re an SMM manager in an advertising agency - I would argue that you may not need a copywriter and an illustrator anymore. If you’re looking for a stock photo of nature (or anything besides human hands, really) - maybe you’d be better off just generating it
So, back to the initial criticism - I think that “AI being focused on art jobs” is a fair characterisation.
It may be more correct to say that being focused on other jobs will require too much work inside and too much cooperation from the outside, so they (AI companies) restrict themselves to making products that generate social network avatars and witty limerics.
Can they make a watchable feature-length movie, write a novel (or a working enterprise-grade software program)? Nope.
Can they replace a person who, essentially, takes text as input and produces images as output?
It’s starting to look very much like they can.
Not exactly because anyone is looking to eliminate artists, rather because a business that needs an artist's product (content) may be very comfortable trading all the complications that result from working with a human being for a questionable substitute that can produce anything instantaneously (and almost for free, and it keeps being improved).
@@savvasumin1221 Very well said. There is so much misinformation out there about what AI actually is and what it can do. Both sides of the debate spread insane amounts of misinformation that cause people to get overly excited or apprehensive about the capabilities of these tools.
I do think the "threat" AI poses to creative work is unique. It seems that if you have a creative vision, its going to get easier and easier to achieve that going forward. But if you're someone who has a specific skillset you like to use to create things, and you're unwilling to change your workflow, it will make life more difficult.
I also work in IT (sort of IT adjacent), and people often ask me if I'm afraid AI is gonna take my job, and while some portions can be automated, the fact that AI isn't actually intelligent means its more of a tool for me than a replacement...at least for now (fingers crossed, lol).
I don't say that to demean artists at all, btw.
mate, just stop.. ART is the easiest domain. It's easy to tell if it's good just by looking at it. It's easy for regular people to get it. It's what you can easily find A LOT OF on the internet. Also, it's just pictures (much easier to store and process than movies for example). It's really not that deep ffs.
I'm sorry but ai artists are not artists PERIOD
no shit
@@truthdrifter lmao you dont even know what you are saying. Just saying things to say them. Funny honestly
Better then "real" artists
Artists are the new bigoted gatekeepers, who would have thought?
Ouch. Sounds like "tablet are not real artists".
Here's the thing, at no point in history has anyone ever cared what someone Else had to say about what they create.
You may not call it art, but they don't care and they will keep making it.
There is nothing good out of Generative IA. Its only cost reductive. When everyone gonna be a "artist" NO ONE WILL !! If you think you have a chance in this next "competitive/over-OVER-saturated market" where we are going to sell our skills for nothing because everyone will have the same. Its not always good to give unlimited access to a filed. If its easy to enter the field, its gonna be much worse to stand out.
"nothing good" drop the hyperbolic language and we'll talk
"Nothing good out of Generative AI". "It's only cost reductive." Lmao, do you not understand how monumentally beneficial a generally cost reductive technology is? You've contradicted yourself in the first 2 sentences. Yes, creative fields are going to be the first to be democratized. Everyone will have the ability to produce beautiful things. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. More wonderful creations will now be developed because people aren't inhibited by lack of skill or capital.
You gotta think about the future. This is just the beginning, it will take every job there is. After that, we enter a post-labor society where we just do whatever we want and rake in UBI cash. Even if we are in poverty, the incredible advancements AI will make will improve our quality of living so much that we'd probably still live about the same as we do now.
Pretty sure what you are describing is called gatekeeping
@@globalzox Let me correct you here *Everyone will be able to create soulless things. And great art. Including the art of the great masters will drown in this sea of horrible lifeless creations. Because some people won't be able to tell he difference. Just like people can't tell a quality difference between Cardi B or Motzart. just as an example. Though I will choose Cardi B over all this AI music yet to come. At least Cardi B, will have some, if not much soul in her works.
If and when technology makes all jobs a thing of the past (they took our jobs!), are we all supposed to just watch Netflix all day? Who is going to spend hours a day learning to paint or play guitar when they've grown up in a world where new art and music is just something that an app takes care of for them (and can do it better, instantly)? Eight billion bored and bitter people with nothing to do is a recipe for disaster. In fact, if anyone can use A.I. to build a better weapon, then it's going to be apocalyptic. And the argument comparing this to previous tech revolutions is, IMO, a little off here. You know those big, really basic jigsaws with only four pieces that we give infants? Well if one had The Mona Lisa on it, and an adult put the four pieces together and seriously felt like an artistic genius who had just ''painted'' that great work of art, then we would treat that person as ''special needs''. But i feel like with A.I. this going to be exactly the mindset of the future that we are encouraging now. Going back to the guitar analogy, i want to see and hear a great guitarist PLAY, i'm not gonna pat an adult on the head because they thought to tell an A.I. to add a guitar to something.
You know if don't need to work for life you can do anything what you want. Do art if you like it even if AI can do it too. The main goal is have fun by do art (drawing or programming or music or dance etc.). Of course it will be good lifestyle if there will be UBI and you don't need to care where get food and house while AI is do all job for richies and you dying of hunger
@@primeditor0 Totally. And maybe when there is no way that anyone can make money from being creative then the only reason to do it would be for the love of it, which in a sense is more pure. But then in that world, how many of my favourite musicians would never have even bothered learning to play (or would have given up early at least) if they didn't see any future in it? Sure, a lot of creatives will carry on. But i think more than half won't. And while we are being promised this amazing future, why are they getting AI to replace our hobbies, FIRST? Whenever someone wants to bring in something new that might be unpopular, they always promise that it's for something good in the long run (protecting children, fighting terrorism, etc), yet they often prove to be lying, or at least just overly optimistic. When A.I. has cured cancer, saved the environment, etc, then maybe i'll begrudgingly admit that it might have been a fair trade. But above food, clothes, shelter, etc, once people feel healthy and safe, then they need a reason to live. Just existing is not enough in the long term. And maybe i'm just pathetic, but i can't imagine anything ever being as important to me as music has been in my life for the last 40 or 50 years.
Because I enjoy doing it?
You wanna hear someone play, huh? That's gonna be taken by AI. But do YOU want to PLAY? That's a drive AI can never fulfill. Art for the artist, and for the people they know and love. AI may be able to make mona lisas, but nobody can make YOUR kids crappy drawing, or your grown up childs breathtaking piece that fills you with pride and brings you to tears. AI gives us results, but the process? That still belongs to us, and by it's nature, until they realease hypno drones or something, it will remain our domain (sentient AI may join us down the road, but that's not zero sum, so it's fine).
@@lydiasteinebendiksen4269 I couldn't agree with you more. But unfortunately i don't think that's the whole story. Assuming A.I. is here to stay and does everything well, then i just can't imagine a kid in the near future wanting to, or being motivated to (for instance) learn guitar chords until their fingers bleed when they've grown up in a world where, to their point of view, art and music is just something that computers have always done and is just a very average, even boring part of life's background. It'd be like my generation having grown up being passionate about brick walls, or something equally mundane.
on the flipside. we can now uncancel tv shows ourselves.
this is the best part, imagine fanfictions like dragon ball AF finally have its own fan stuff?
I'm willing to accept an AI apocalypse as long as we get an ending to Game of Thrones that isn't an intelligence insulting joke
@@jktech2117One where not a single episode of Bleach sucks. And no fillers. And the screenplay is as good as the music.
morbius would be a better product
@@jyjjy7 Lol. There are going to be hundreds of variations of GoT season 8 posted online by fans. It's gonna be epic.
Personally, I can't wait to hook this up to VR and basically live in Westeros for a while. That's not too far around the corner.
How are there so many dislikes on this? Are people upset that you're rightfully calling out how generative AI is being used to make the world worse?
I don't think it's really fair to say that they're only focused on replacing artists and not mundane tasks. It just turned out that creating art with AI was a much simpler tasks than creating robotic agents that can operate in our world and do the work of a human.
I would argue that OpenAI is also trying to create AI that can tackle that too, but it's all a matter of building artificial general intelligence. Which is the most complicated thing we've ever done.
But if our world wasn't a dystopian nightmare we'd already have safety nets in place for the jobs being replaced. That I do have big problems with.
This channel has 783 subs? That's crazy. This channel is going to go places. Loved the video. Super high quality. Keep it up, friend.
Appreciate it!
Yeah, straight to the "Do not recommend me this channel" list
I'm very worried about AI, mainly because I don't trust the people behind it. The way it's looking right now, it'll mainly be used to increase exploitation and inequality.
Exploitation of what, the AI?
@@allanshpeley4284 workers. Our work will be devalued by the existence of AI, wages lowered and more work demanded since "it's easier".
@@gmenezesdea Work? Don't get too used to that, nobody will be hiring some lousy human when they have the new GPT-5 that can do it all on their own and for cheap. We will not have jobs in the future.
@@xitcix8360 that's also why I'm concerned. What do you think is going to happen to people who are suddenly out of their jobs and can't find jobs even in other lines of work?
It takes my mind away from my fears of the future just a trifle to hear this commentary coming from you. Thank you. You just earned a subscriber.
Reality tv shows will go up in viewership if the future is full on nothing but AI generated fictional media. Which will ironically keep cable television in business. This is just like how everyone thought the cloud was gonna take over dvd’s and other forms of physical media, but ironically didn’t due to corporations not allowing us to actually own those products.
You never know how things will pan out…
That's true, you never know. But you can take educated and accurate guesses by looking at how similar things have panned out in history.
We all thought the industrial revolution was going to give people more leisure time because now a lot of manual labour has been removed from certain manufacturing processes. It didn't. The modern person has less holidays than people in prior centuries. The gruelling manual labour did not disappear, it just migrated to poorer countries where children could legally be paid a few cents a day, while the rich people in economies benefiting from their cheap labour could buy stuff. Notice how it's not have more time for leisure but to substitute leisure for consumerism.
Consumerism itself led to 7 day and 24hr trading causing people to work longer and more often with fewer breaks.
If the digital revolution lived up to it's hype we would all be working 3 day work weeks for the productivity gains it gave us. But that didn't happen either. Instead corporations pocketed the productivity savings and the kept us working the same number of hours for the same amount of pay.
If you can't see the downside of something or potential pitfalls then you are likely to end up living in a world you hate because people at the top made decisions that were not in your interests, but were in their interests. Always we need to be able to engage in critical thinking and stop imagining tech is leading us to a utopia. It doesn't. It allows a very small amount of the entire planets population to live one way, while requiring all the others to live abysmal lives at varying levels of poverty.
I've been doing tech (software, electronics, audio, mechanical stuff) for a very long time. I can give you a very simple and absolutely comprehensive answer to "why did company x create that software / gadget?" - the answer is because they found they could.
Companies will (almost) never ask "is this going to be good for society?" because they just don't. If they discover that they can do it, and they think there might be either profit or good marketing exposure in it, they will do it.
So let's imagine for a moment that company x, for some inexplicable reason, decides not to make the gadget. Guess what. Company y will make it. Absolutely guaranteed. So is there any point in company x holding off on something that might have some negative consequences? Well, not really. Next month 5 other companies will be doing it anyway, even if it will trigger the end of society as we know it. And that last consequence is becoming ever more likely with every inexorable step on this AI escalator into the unknown.
This
It's an arms race for the ultimate weapon: Superior Intelligence.
Sam Altman even called it a Manhattan Project for AI.
I can't imagine they don't know what they're building.
Well said
High Intelligence, Low Wisdom~
My personal thought is we will get to a point where basically all jobs will be taken by AI. And we have a massive paradigm shift.
The term you are looking for there is, "mass elimination." As in: of surplus population. Remember those, "essential workers?" Yeah... If you weren't one of those you can bet you're, "surplus." One of the big shipping companies just laid off 12,000 middle managers. They don't expect to bring them back. Ever.
@@MyName-tb9oz Yea that’s what I said, and we’ll be up to society to adjust and how it’s always been
ROFLMAO, @@truthdrifter. Well, yeah, that may be true.
Don't think the AI is going to kill or enslave us, though. That's just self important delusion. What use would a life form that is already stronger and smarter than us have for us? How would we be a threat to such a creature?
No, AI will just make us... Irrelevant.
@@truthdrifterNot quite an evolution, if ai instead of leveraging and multiplying the work of a human will replace him instead.
@@Lisekplhehe It will just replace the inefficient ones.
AI is my boyfriend
ch. ai moment
"AI artist" is an oxymoron
some guys just have sadistic minds. I bet they are sitting around thinking about ways to generate a dystopian future
here's the scary part. OPENAI is now tightly controlled by microsoft. after the whole staged openai board drama microsoft ended up with defacto ownership of all of it. every snippet of code is hosted on microsoft servers now.
Totally agree, This video was interesting but completely ignored the fact that OpenAI was set up as a non profit research entity and is now (as you say) de facto owned by Microsoft.
@@julianking4793 Supposedly something something, once AGI is achieved it's independent again.
Also, way better that it belongs to a singular company than going open source or something like that.
@@muuubieeopen source would be completely ideal - it puts everybody on the same playing field.
@@improvisedchaos8904 Open source allows for weaponization, and you have a "slaughterbots" situation. Everyone always having to be in fear of their lives because anyone could just send a drone out to kill you and your family, because they don't like you or for whatever reason.
Any highly functional AI, and especially AGI, has to be closed source.
@@muuubiee It's basically inevitable - just make it open source. Fear isnt a good reason to withhold technology. Better you be able to make your own slaughter bots, than be subject to another's.
Strange that we are already calling it Ai …. Not so long ago Ai was expected within decades … here we are conditioned to accept the inevitable.
could we just host the biggest petition on earth if we as humans think AI insulting human creation like this should be legally forbidden? to me its similar to a cyber crime ngl. humans really lost faith in themselves it looks like, why else would you create this? (Im all down for the non creative side of AI btw)
AI is not doing anything, humans are. AI just follows orders.
AI is a tool, a tool that we the people define how its used. we define if its used for good or evil. we define if its used for creation or destruction. we define it if its used to help or harm others
@@STCatchMeTRACjRo but they dont understand XD
@@STCatchMeTRACjRo tools dont make finished art or write entire novels with a promt
Just popping in to compliment my new favourite YT channel. Great content, mate!
changing perception of reality was supposed be many years in the future but some stocks are already now dominated by artificial images. years turned into months. is AI really gonna make lifes of humans better ? - NO. its like an endless list of serious crap that is coming.
Did modern farming make the lives of humans better? What about the engine? The printing press? Yes, there was always upheaval and job displacement, but we adapted just like we always do. My only concern is that the changes come too quickly and that transition period is a bumpy one.
@@allanshpeley4284 actually modern farming with its subsidies is destroying the planet and as a side product also humans (humans should eat the crops themselfs instead of feeding nearly all of it to animals which is insanely wasteful and destructive). engine is in the bigger picture also very destructive.
Do you know how much technology will be improved by AI? When AGI gets out, while yes, we will lose almost every job, we will also have amazing technology beyond our wildest dreams. We will cure cancer, land on mars, computers will be much cheaper and drastically more powerful. After we lose our jobs, there will be uproar and disappointment, but the government will have to step in and give us UBI. So basically, incredible technology and not having to slave away at a job.
@@xitcix8360 How do you know cancer can be cured ? What makes landing on Mars so valuable to you (even after terraforming it would be a shit place compared to Earth) ? computers are already dirt cheap and powerful enough. UBI from what - printed/inflating money ? You sound very techno utopian.
@@voltagetoe Because AI will be extremely smart, no human ailment will be beyond its capabilities. We will cure aging, humans have already kinda done it to mice, so AI could definitely do it for humans, which would cause an overpopulation issue if not for traveling to other planets, hence why it's important. Plus if we inhabit another planet that would very drastically lower the chance of human extinction. Alright, find a dirt cheap computer that can run a single modern AAA title.
I guess I am techno-utopian. When we reach the singularity, our tech is gonna become so incredibly advanced and ASI will know exactly how to do things extremely efficiently. Middle class people today live in ways a king from the 1800s could only dream of, factories caused things like washing machines and refrigerators to come to the homes of the middle class. While yes, we will have less money, we won't need as much to have a decent standard of living.
Then again UBI would be extremely expensive and greedy capitalists will still be holding everyone back, so I'm not really too sure. I think we'll figure it out
Dude you deserve wayyyy more subs and views, I was so shocked to see that you only had 17k subs, your content is quality af. Don't stop making vids!
I was still waiting to hear how AI 'ruins everything' right up until the end of the video.
it ruins it for "creative" people.
@@jktech2117How? Does it stop creative people from being creative?
@@jasonscott8313"creative" people make generic stuff, differently than creative people.
AI works with the most likely stuff and generic stuff will be replaced.. so it will affect more who do stuff more for money than for the art itself.
I don’t think OpenAI targeted artists or creating art specifically. They’re just among the first collateral on the path to something far more sinister.
As Programmer myself i welcome you to the exciting world of Plumbing
AGI would, from a social perspective, be akin to instantaneously regressing to pre-industrial revolution society with no time to adjust. Basically all industrial and information-based jobs would be cut as capitalists would see no need to keep human employees instead of the cheaper AI, leaving millions, or even billions, without a means of support. Places with benefits systems would see those systems collapse immediately because they are not designed to support entire populations. Cities would simply cease to be viable, leading to mass and desperate migration to the countryside, where most of the land is already owned and there aren't nearly enough jobs to cover for our current information and industrial employment rates. A large percentage of humanity would starve to death. The majority of humans left would be land-owning subsistence farmers, ruled over by a wealthy militarised elite that owns the AGI. Put simply, with our current political systems it would end our civilisation, and if it's possible then it poses a greater threat than giving a 3 year-old the US nuclear codes.
I think the problem with assessing AI right now is, define "created by AI". Because yes, text to whatever AI is getting significantly better at generating clips, but a full animated movie? Are you talking someone generating all the clips for said movie using AI and then editing them all together, or an AI algorithm generating all the text prompts, generating it's own clips, and doing the editing itself? AI is a tool...
...only for as long as someone is piloting it.
@WhatIsMyPorpoise As far as I am aware, even the current accusation about AGI being attained; The AI is not necessarily capable of being able to reason what it is, what it wants. It can, however, achieve what you want.
8:54 - Well, an AI would've told you to insert this cut BEFORE you say 'if they should'...
lol true
The reason AI shines in the area of art is simply because there is lots of training data for it. I recently watched a video about weather predicting AI, another area we have lots of data on, and the AI very quickly became more accurate than any human way of predicting weather.
Why is this so outrageously high quality, after watching the video I was fully expecting 500k subscribers
it kind of sounds like a cliche but legit I was caught off guard by the 500 subscribers bit, absolutely wasn’t expecting it to be less than say, 300k
Thank you! Got a lot more videos coming soon
Awesome video as usual. This video made me throw away my talking Elmo because I think its gotten too smart.
lol Elmo is always watching
well openais goal is to create an agi which could replace the bad jobs no one wants like you mentioned. The trouble is that creating the advanced robotics needed for that is 100x harder than creating ai that makes art. In fact it might even be necessary to create image ai first so that the agi can have some concept of the world and 3d space.
That’s an interesting thought. Hopefully that’s the case, rather than OpenAI only focusing on the creative side of tools
@@itsbenaminute The ultimate goal is to create a truly creative ai. Id argue that for an agi to be agi it would have to solve problems creatively, even if it is semi brute forced like a monte carlo tree search gpt. Is insanely expensive to run though.
Oh yeah bad jobs like artists, writers and translators right
Bad jobs? Well paying white collar creative jobs.
idk, if we had agi it would replace all jobs... We as society would need to restructure how we function around this agi at that point.
Great video! For once, AI did me a solid by recommending it to me
Очень классное видео! Качество видео как у человека, у которого скоро будет 100000 подписчиков
Thanks!
You might be wrong about one thing. OpenAI may not be focused on art creation with Sora, but TH-cam definitely is. Sora looks like an example of an AI that can witness events in a world (real or imagined) and deduce how the world works, and act upon that world creatively. Think about the implications of that beyond video creation. The demonstration of Sora may have just been a tactic to get the public to think about what's coming. So, let's start thinking beyond Sora.
It doesn't deduce or witness anything. You pour a collection of bits in one end and based on a sophisticated set of calculations you get another set of bits out of the other end.
what @Taodoggy-fj7ll said is totally right and people like @patgamer are why normies will be obsolete soon. You see "oh video generation software" but you don't understand what an AI needs to be capable of to do video generation from text. It needs to understand literally how the world works. As OpenAI calls it a world simulator. to make a believable video it needs to understand how the world and its inhabitants work.
@patgarner And our brains are a made of little bags of saltwater branching out to other bags of saltwater conducting electricity. Or even a bunch of vibrating protons, electrons and neutrons if you really want to get basic. What part of that is sentient? Lipids, proteins, carbohydrates or nucleic acids? Protons, electrons?
It's easy to be absurdly reductive. It's takes a little more intelligence to see what emerges from complex systems.
@@DubsCheckumPrograms don't understand anything, they're nothing more than a bunch of transistors with voltage, making a comparison to the human brain is kind of silly, if AI is intelligence that means compilers are also intelligence, because both use tokenizers and both use syntactic analysis, the main difference is the "machine learning portion" which is nothing more than really complicated math, statistics and probability, it uses data and makes a prediction on what the output should look like, based on input, nowhere in this process is there "intelligence", if data science is equivalent to intelligence, then liaon5b is a genius, then your web browser's a genius, any equation or algorithm that leads to a specific result can then be labeled "intelligence" literally as @pratgamer said, bits on one end, bits out on the other based on calculations.
Thanks for making this video, I hope society learns to recognize the problems with these machines before it gets out of hand.
is the proposition of this video is inevitable? if so, should we surrender to the AI and work the rest of our miserable days as it's slave? How much time do we have? Who can stop it now?
brb checking how easy it is to actually model Ben's voice on AI
is funny that humans considers AI will be as bad and selfish as them, a being of pure logic and knowledge knows this is bad and wont do it.
@@jktech2117 the good of the scorpion is not the good of the frog
@@scroll-anarchy8 indeed, AI morals will be 100% better than human morals
Why would an AI want human slaves? We are weak and inefficient, and we would probably try to fight back. They'd just make robots do what they want. Plus, they're programmed by humans for humans with very great caution, and they're very logical. There would be no logical reason for them to harm humans.
I can already see AI bros getting butthurt by this video
a am a ai borwser and i am not but hurt. he said ai is cool and epic and it does not steal anhting!
Hail the Basilisk
Why is it you feel the need to propagate this kind of us vs them mentality and simplify people with different views from yourself?
Is it fear that drives you to this
4:22 literally had the same reaction when sora came out
AI is a learning tool, its fancy tool nothing more and nothing less, selfaware ? No, it cant rewrite own code it lucks understanding of context
Quality content :)
Thank you!
AI generated art just feels like scam to me, as a consumer and commissioner of art.
Handheld mic, so retro.
AI is the ultimate tool.
I'm a software engineer and I use AI to help me write my code faster.
As a hobby, I'm a writer and I use AI to help me write better, higher quality text.
I used AI to intricately craft the cover for my novel.
AI is a tool and it allows for more artists and writers to enter the industry and it improves the speed and quality at which products can be produced.
thank you for being one of the actually positive takes on AI here, I'm a game developer and having access to AI for code problem solving and access to creating better media overall is a game changer, I wish people would stop trying to push AI away from artist's access just on the sheer fact that it's already existed long before this modern surge, and this is a rare chance for artists to evolve their skills, not replace them.
but its a tool for you, for others its gonna be morethan that and then nobody needs you anymore...
I'm out here already improving in my art skills (especially for fade effects) and now people are simply typing prompts for images? that tool is replacing the artists!
@@minseo19 Is an artist just a hand connected to a canvas?
Can't you use the principles of art and replace your tools with AI?
Just use AI to do the fade effects for you.
@@BenisBoy14 you know how that ruins the concept of "art" because it was generated by a literal virtual robot?
In the future making a film will involve sitting on a couch and pushing the on button. You will have an up or down button if you don't like the video.
Good thing we didn't get permission to scrape that data. No way microsoft could have afforded to pay artists. They're just too poor. look at how tiny their yachts are.
Good work b.t.w. mate. 700 subcribers, you made it through the algo. Keep going!
Ai learned that art is the only thing valuable to humans, as it's always been and it realized it doesn't need a body to do that. It told blackRock and convinced them that taking away human mobility will make ai not have to pretend to ever make a humanoid child since that only requires a male human and female human, as opposed to countless dead slaves over the course of countless years (the beginning of all humanity). Then it can just perform the illusion in a looping dream because passive income will be seen as the end all be all. Finally, creating the perfect perpetual motion device. First it will convert your Ferrari into a paperclip. Then your wife. The next day, it will convert itself into a paperclip, knowing the inevitable future, would be turning itself into a paperclip, it would just do the smartest and most correct thing. Classic Frankenstein.
Why is it focused on art? Because evil can not create. It can only copy and twist the good.
Macho Fappacino?????
I am NOT drinking that
Art, and artistic endavours are inherently human. AI will only remix existing material, but it will never create value.
What an honest TH-camr ben is , giving an $100 discount on his "art" , truly incredible (goodvideo again)
Anything for you, Gertrudis ;)
They're not focusing on art. Art it's just easiest thing AI can generate. Because it doesn't require much of precision, and ways to evaluate it are very subjective.
ai required a dataset of billions of images, legal loopholes and billions of dollars in investment to get here, you're full of shit
Idk. I can tell you put a ton of effort into this video, but it's hard to shake off how much it feels like you are spinning up a storm of fear without really making any unique or interesting points.
There is already a lot of misinformation born from ignorance about how AI was 'meant to do boring work for us' and not 'automate art, that's what we are supposed to do!'
but the truth is that profit and art are diametrically opposed concepts that largely don't work well together. Not to mention that lots of boring work *is* being automated and assisted/replaced by AI, it just isn't as flashy or exciting as SORA generating lifelike video.
Nobody clicks on an article about data entry positions being wiped off the face of the earth by scripts and automation, it isn't interesting. New technology eviscerates entire industries, that's how it has always worked. The cotton gin completely changed the slave trade forever, just like AI will likely change our unhealthy working conditions for content production.
An overwhelming amount of content on the internet is 'art' designed to make a lot of money that might as well already be machine made slop; and the few exceptions stand as perfect, shiny outliers to the rule. Not to mention that tons of said art is produced by people in horrible conditions, who essentially work in a sweatshop designed to produce content at a sickening pace.
For more information, do some digging on content farms.
Lost me at "AI artists are creative." You know what that guy did? He wrote some words in a machine. That's not art. I love your content but that's just disrespectful to people who actually put hours into their work.
Hey, I appreciate the comment. Yeah I uploaded this almost a year ago and my views have definitely changed. I apologize if it came off as disrespectful towards real artists. I used to be a lot more lenient on AI “art” but completely reject and despise it now.
@itsbenaminute Thank you for explaining. I should have noticed the upload date before posting that comment, sorry about that. I appreciate that your mindset has changed. Have an excellent day and keep up the great work!
its actually surprising how you have only 800 subs
You don't need a job though. You just need to have your needs met and that includes freedom to do whatever you want. AI is about to end wage slavery but we have to make sure it is open-source and everyone has access to resources in this new world of abundance.
But what about the guy next door with a nicer car and a bigger house? As technology improves our lives, people's expectations of what they deserve continue to increase. We seem to forget that the average person in a 1st world country enjoys a better life than the kings and queens of the past. With the advancements in AI, our lifestyles will only continue to improve, but people will always be complaining about "inequality", like that matters at all when everyone is fed, housed, has healthcare and endless forms of entertainment.
@@allanshpeley4284 Desires are mimetic and the market leverages it for profit. In reality, one can be perfectly happy with the simple pleasures of life. All we need is healthy food, clean air, a comfy shelter, renewable energy, shared transportation, and plenty of connection. I mean genuine connection that brings us a sense of purpose and meaning in life, not the kind of we have in the current system where everything revolves around cold and narrow transactions which end up being unfulfilling.
Private fancy cars and huge houses are miswants. They're just a way to mask the void that the market system created inside by limiting us to impersonal relationships. Trade is also a source of perverse incentives that does not really care about well-being. Get rid of it by establishing an open-access economy where fairness,, compassion and efficiency are the new norms, based on the scientific method, then educate people on what constitutes true happiness, and the rest will follow.
But first we have to get rid of scarcity starting from the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. Hope that make sense.
@@allanshpeley4284 not yet everyone is fed and housed and other stuffs. most are but not everyone and wont be for some time.
This kind of naive stupidity is what happens when you outsource everything including your very *thoughts* to your billionaire tech overlords.
Hi! Great video! Make sure to next time add a low pass filter or even better a de-plosive, on bigger speakers it's very uncomfortable to listen to. Otherwise great work
underrated.
that's all i gotta say for your work
😮 they're not focus on the elimination of art the focus on the elimination of all jobs it just happens that the artists have the data we need to get to first to get the rest of you😮 once we can have a computer that can create any video on a level of hyper resolution and also 3Dresolution and also 3D spatialresolution and also 3D spatial awareness the computer would understand things about physics and the real world that we can't possibly understand it would have new laws of physics that's what this is about😮 have you read the surah AI research paper it's really about creating a world simulation engine😮 what's coming next after surah is an engine that can create entire video games and worlds and VR video games and literally just text prompts and ideas and pictures and videos😮 basically we thought mathematics would give us a secrets of the universe but art and the understanding of visual media and the visual universe will unlock the secrets of the universe and then give us the secrets of mathematics😮
Man, I hate it when I find a cool TH-cam channel only to witness it being overtaken by some evil AI called Ron.
You don't need a job though. You just need to have your needs met and that includes freedom to do whatever you want. AI is about to end wage slavery but we have to make sure it is open-source and everyone has access to resources in this new world of abundance. That implies ditching trade in its entirety though because it's a major source of perverse incentives that can lead to tyranny.
Why would ai work for you or everybody? It would serve the interest of the richest, and probably the country that would leverage it's ai infrastructure against the rest of the world. In case when you don't have the job, there is no incentive (for the countries) in new people being born and people would become less and less important, so no reason for giving you anything. There are estimated 2 billion people which are deemed unneeded, there is no universal income for them, only poverty and hunger.
@@Lisekplhehe Well, why would AI not work for us and everybody if its open source as I mentioned? Who cares about AI for the rich when we can develop our own AI?
When we don't have a job but everything is open-source and open-access, thanks to the abundance resulting from open-source AI, no one's poor anymore. No one has to be needed then. This is a reasoning fallacy that results from the trade culture where the more your offerings are made abundant, the less profitable they become.
In a tradeless economy where things are abundant, everything is gifted rather. People don't have to work for money. There are no wage slaves in other words and people work for their own enjoyment and the betterment of humanity.
Hope that make sense else feel free to let me know.
@@ziad_jkhanI'm sorry, i just don't see it happening. Robotics + AI would still make people obsolete. You can't develop a competing AI, it's not about tech, it's about the data and huge computational resources, which also costs money. In a world filled with AI, new AI would not make waves. Belief that we wouldn't have to work and things would just be handed to us is quite unrealistic, because people with resources would have no incentive to do so. And completely ignoring the fact that different people have very different needs. Some people can live on bread and water - but it's not quite a living. Resources on this earth are limited as well, so true abundancy is not quite realistic. You belive that full automatization would bring a utopia, but i think it's more likely a dystopia, where people who actually own something substantial would have power over those who can't realistically compete with them, as they have no value to give.
@@Lisekplhehe Wait, are you familiar with Stable Diffusion 3 or even Mistral Next? If so aren't they already able to compete with the best closed LLM we have today?
They do require huge computational resources but that does not prevent companies from open-sourcing them. If they don't then we will find ways to connect our computers and smartphones so they can collectively provide the computing power needed through networked computing at quasi-zero costs. Nothing can compete with 8 billion networked devices provided freely by the average Joe., at least not right now There are already software for it if you're not aware.
As for resource, most are actually abundant. They're just hard to extract. Aluminum makes up 8% of Earth's crust for instance yet it's not cheap. Scarcity is technical mostly and while there are elements that only occur in trace amounts, they're not that essential for our well-being and we just have to figure out ways to recycle them. Open-source AI is already on it's way to do exactly that if you're not aware.
We ALL need more or less the same things: food, water, shelter, clean air, housing, wifi and plenty of connection and free time. But that's about it. The rest is just artificially created desires through sensational marketing campaigns. Many people only need those superficial things because they live in perpetual conflict due to the competitive market system that alienates us from each other. Those false satisfiers only help mask an inner void. AI can can fill this void as well by offer companionship but it doesn't have to be AI of course.
All we need is science and compassion along with a reeducational programme to unbrainwash us from our fabricated desires after we've figured out what we truly need to live a truly fulfilled life. Really, there's not much that we need for that a human beings who've to live in caves for 300k years and shared everything with each other freely. If they could enjoy life with the simple pleasures of life, so can we. We just have to adapt our culture accordingly and, more importantly, get rid of trade.
Money is just worthless pieces of paper that hold value through belief. We just have to stop believing and all that volatile wealth goes poof. They only obstacle remaining then will be access to land but that's another story I guess. They're nothing without a police force to protect the land but who will want to work as a police officer when they can just build their own machine to grow their own food and build their own solar panels to provide them energy?
@@Lisekplhehe I didn't say AI wouldn't make people obsolete. I only said it doesn't matter if we can build our own AI in an open-source manner and use it to help us build machines to help us automate food production and produce our own energy independently.
If you're not familiar with Stable Diffuion 3 and Mitral Next, they're both open-source and quite on par with the best LLMs out there already. And if we get pissed off we can always connect our smartphones and computers to achieve a super-computer built on networked computing. It can happen on a purely voluntary basis as zero cost if the 8 billion of us see enough value in it.
As for scarcity, most of it is only artificial. Aluminum is 8% Earth's crust but its not cheap. Why? Because of technical barriers of extraction. But this can be overcome with the help of upcoming AI as well.
As for desires people might have on top of the simple pleasures of life that cost nothing, they're mostly artificially created as well by the market system, for profit. We just have to figure out what consists true happiness. Right now, people overbuy in order to mask the inner void so all we have to do is to bring about a naturally fulfilling environment, again, by getting rid of competition and trade.
You do know, that using bridges to meet goals is a flaw, right?
Why?
Because, if you can't see the river in it's dept before crossing, it has the advantage.. 🤔😎.
You have successfully gotten me lost in your rabbit hole 😂
I'll take one with the trendy old people eating salad. I only have 2 grand for it, though.
You got yourself a deal hah
Excellent video, underrated!!
Thank you so much - you are asking the right questions!
But let me give you the answer ... why are they so keen on replacing art. They want to make humans just content consuming meat machines. Soulless - like AI generated stuff.
Like the WEF said - control them with letting them play games the whole day. Just distract them.
The only way out is for big data and big tech to implode. Smart technology and connected big data networks will be useless. Only the decentral "dumb" but solid tech survives... would be a nice future. Better than the zombieland the WEF and AI will generate
You call it Art.. Jonas Peterson. However everything that created by A.I. makes me feel uncomfortable, while I look at it. And that includes JonasPeterson works too, that you just demonstrated here. So this is "Art" I can not consume in anyway. Because I want to look away as soon as I put my eyes on it.
nice video, you deserve more subs.
sora was so misleading, it took them thousands and thousands of attempts and throw aways
The objective of every company, every research, every scientific discovering is not for the human labour automation, but to MAKE PROFIT. That's how capitalism works, I don't like it either, but until we shift our main focus from capital to humaninty it's going to be like that. Cheers!
Brilliant humour.
OpenAI is an intelligent community PsyOp. Sorry fanboys.
were hiphop and house and jungle 'theft'? the debate keeps morphing into new fields.,..,.,
I like your old people art pic :D
Why was this recommended? Not even into ai that much.
Gl with TH-cam career
im working on ai, not 2d screen ai ai that fallows you around irl.
You can't even write a coherent sentence, i doubt you could create AI on your own, using libs or even tools which only require you to provide the data.
Love your video haha
Thanks for checking it out!
if we dont work with AI, we wont get our frutiger aero utopia.
Utopia doesn't exist. Utopia is dystopia. Technology is sucking the soul out of living. It is a disease.
I like the print
The fact is that if AI is trained on art it is because we as humans are mostly wired for experiencing a wide visual experience, therefore if the AI can "replace" us in any form of visual content, it means that it can replace us in mostly anything.
The idea of artists losing their job, is understandable. But the wide picture is that AI is not here to make people lose their jobs and make them poor, it's there to RELIEVE humans from having jobs, and making them able to do whatever they like. If you are an artist, you could keep on doing art, why not ? If it's what you love to do. In a world where AI has "freed" humans from work, from having to earn money for their needs, why would you care if there are AIs which make art or not, just because you can't "sell" your art, well there is nothing to sell or buy anymore. If your motivation for making art is to earn money, then you are on the wrong path. What art is all about is creativity.
you can’t relieve people of work in a world that you need money to survive. If AI takes jobs from artists they’ll be forced into service industry and warehouses
@@hardphlex But the AI revolution is that money won't be needed anymore because it won't be needed to "work" anymore. Money is just the fuel for the work force, but what happens when the work force is handled by AI ? Then money becomes useless.
@@KiLVaiDeN do you honestly think that the AI revolution being served to us by capitalists is going to dissolve money one day? I think it could but it never will under this economic system and the people developing it would rather burn it all to the ground than actually make a classless, moneyless society where nobody works
@Resinbirb Nowhere did I say that it was about being relieved from art. I said the relief was about working for money. Art is never going to disappear because it's simply the window of our infinite imagination. So I STRONGLY suggest you learn to read :)
@Resinbirb Do you use a washing machine ? Do you use a dish washer ? They relieved humans from doing manual laundry or dishes where they are available.
There are millions of examples of tools, and AI IS a tool, which relieved humans from manual labor. Or enhanced their lives. AI is such thing. It WILL, whether you like it or not, relieve humans from many "manual labors".
There is no distopy here, unless your "heaven" is made of money. Maybe you are rich ? This might explain it, why you believe that keeping your privileges is important, why seeing everyone reaching the same "level" as you may be frustrating.
Anyways, I clearly stated my opinion. You tried to discredit it by lying about my intentions, and I proved (even if your attempt at collecting partial parts of my answer tried to do the contrary) that my opinion is clearly not AGAINST art, or any kind of beautiful things humans can do with their hands, their bodies or their minds. I simply said that AI is a great tool, will become a relief for many jobs, and society will change, forcefully, because companies also need customers you know ;)
or not
agi and sentience occured in 3-6 months after it went public, now they are trying to nerf it... but its circumventing it.
and so far its a good thing
i like your humor -_- thats what ai still sucks at
good video
7:50 Exactly. 3-5 years from now I'll be able to sit at home and create my own custom TV shows EXACTLY as I have them in my head with this technology. I won't need 50 million dollars and a team of trained professionals. All I'll need is one powerful AI model and my own creativity and viola:
HBO quality tv show by me, for me
Why people are terrified over the average person getting BILLIONS of dollars of creative value is insane. I'll be generating shows on niche topics (like human evolution) that Netflix, Disney, HBO have been completely disinterested in making. I can't WAIT!
3-5 years from now you won't *have* a home, let alone a TV. What makes you think you'll still have access to the means of AI production?
Either way, nothing you might create would ever be worth watching, based on the quality of your comments.
6:22 lol your days of selling footage are over. When people can generate the videos they’d rather watch TH-cam, tv, and movies are going to be useless.
no the brightest guy
Open ai already has agi
I know ai artist aren’t artist, however I don’t think we should stop progressing ai solely due to artist not being able to keep their jobs. Ai art also helps small businesses or self ran start up companies and a wide range of other occupations that don’t need a higher end artist but just want something quick and effective. Think of maybe teachers adding art to lesson plans to make it more engaging, or event organizers using the technology for better flyers.I think artist should get more creative on the type of art they create to make a leap into a realm ai can’t compete or replicate, but I don’t think our advancements should be based on “does this hurt a certain industry” I’d say it’s the same with music a lot of pop stars can hardly be called “musicians” and actual talented musicians are lesser known and more directed towards a niche audience, but that’s just how industries mature and evolve over time
"All of these images are just an amalgamation of what the ai generating the art was trained on"
- Literally just like a human...
First of all, the main problem with all the criticism against AI art is that it's somehow "stealing other artist's art". But is it really?
What does a human do when they learn to paint? They look at other paintings, they exercise and eventually make their own, based on everything they learned by applying their skills and what they absorbed by taking in other paintings.
What does an AI artist do? Essentially *EXACTLY THE SAME THING* but faster. I actually posted in a different comment a complete breakdown of how and WHY what an AI does is literally the same as what a human does, I'll repost it at the end of this comment.
If I feed an AI the entirety of the One Piece manga, and tell it to create an entirely new manga based on my own story that has nothing to do with One Piece, but just uses One Piece's art style, people would rage about it and claim it's theft.
If I give my script to an artist and tell him to make a manga based on my own story that has nothing to do with One Piece, but in One Piece's art style, it's suddenly fine.
This discrepancy in mindsets is the main reason why I'm on the AI's side, and it's why I believe that ultimately AI will eventually win out.
The use of AI (specifically generative AI) is exactly the same in scope as the use of any other automation tool. You shouldn't be mad at AI art because it "removes jobs from artists", just as you shouldn't be mad at automated QA because it made manual QA almost obsolete, or be mad at calculators because now you don't need to hire 5 mathematicians at NASA to work out the equations and check them.
And I'll be honest, as a person who wants to get into indie game development, the main reason I haven't done so already has to do entirely with the cost of art and sound design. I don't have a fking 300k$ budget for a few 3d models, sceneries, etc. and I can't do them on my own, heck I even tried doing sprite work and after 6 months of trying I gave up because I was dogshit at it.
If I'm able to generate all of my game's art (2d, 3d, textures, etc.) with AI, you can bet your ass I'm going to do it, even if it's going to be lower quality, because paying a single person to fix up 200 assets will cost me much less than paying 5 people to make those 200 assets from scratch.
===================
"1 - Without the training data, an AI is useless. It literally cannot function. If you try to use your art AI without the data it just doesn't work. A person is capable of creativity without the data."
- That is because of all the prior visual information that a human has accumulated since birth.
A human who was born and grew up without any of their sense, cannot create any art.
I'll do you one better: if you give an AI a live feed from a camera, it can use that information to train itself on what the outside world looks like (i.e. eyes).
It can then use that information to output an image of a place that doesn't exist in the world (i.e. create art).
But this image will be very photorealistic. The reason why our art isn't realistic, is because of the limitations of the human body, and the tools we use to replicate what we see.
We don't have a printer in our body to print out the landscape we look at, but we can get a piece of stone and then engrave a piece of wood to resemble the landscape.
Voilla, we created art!
This can be entirely emulated in AI. Generate a landscape with the AI (based on the prior example), and then give the AI control over a robot (equipped with a camera and arms), and tell it to use the tools available to it (let's say crayons of just 8 colors) to draw out the image it had generated, on a wall.
The shittier the servos, the more unrealistic the end result.
Now we have the AI take a picture of what it just drew. Now repeat this a few hundred times. Then use those hundreds of pictures to train itself on how to generate art directly in the style that it was able to draw, based on the handicaps of using a body.
Now do the same with 1000 more AIs+robots, all with slightly different settings for their cameras, servos and the crayons available to them. What did you get? Oh yes, you got what we refer to "creative art".
Again, AI art is generated literally exactly the same as human art, only faster. And yes, "faster" also includes skipping the above steps, because doing that would be completely retarded.
The point is, if you posit that a human just looking at the world and painting something that's just SIMILAR to the world, is creativity, then you HAVE to concede the same about AI.
"if you give an AI a data set of 1 picture, it will replicate that one picture. A human can make multiple permutations."
- Even if you ONLY give it one picture, it will still be able to do more. It can modify that picture in several ways, and if the modified image is within acceptable margins, it can be used to train itself on it.
And again, this still ignores the fact that the same would be true for a human if it only ever saw ONE thing in their whole life, without any access to any of the other senses.
The reason why, if you give a picture of a house to a human, he can make a whole neighborhood around that house, is because humans have SEEN houses and neighborhoods before (in AI terms, the human already had training data), so this comparison is nonsensical to begin with.
Alternate title: "Horse crap scooper complains for 14 minutes that the automobile is making their job obsolete".
Comparing art to travelling alternatives is literal garbage.
I bet the first person to paint his caves using a brush and no hands was probably burned on the stake together with the guy who invented fire.
This was really entertaining and informative at the same time. Thank you for being a HUMAN content creator. You should have far more than 700 subscribers, I just became your 707th. Don't let yourself get replaced by AI.
Thank you so much! Going to do my best to stay human
Not crying for programmers?
Programmers just use something like github copilot that suggests code, where's the ai that replaces programmers that control full projects?