The AI thread(t)

They do it by stealing everyone's work to feed into their AI's. So they get the labor of talented people and then not having to pay those people. All those creating these AI's should be in jail for theft.

We need to remember that AI is basically just an advanced copy machine. It's a learning computer fed with the efforts of real people, but it has nothing of its own. It's a blank slate. We should be careful not to anthropomorphize AI, as it is basically just faking it. Unlike animals that have a personality of their own... the AI doesn't. It can mix and throw things together, but it can never create something new.


I disagree with this. I just don't see a significant difference, from an IP perspective, to a real person learning to draw. Did you pay everyone whose work you looked at when you learned to draw? You are storing all those images in your brain, and using them when drawing a cat from memory.

AI doesn't copy an eye here and a nose there and a window from over there. It learns what stuff looks like. It starts with random generated noise and basically "squints" at it really hard to figure out what it looks like. That's why the same prompt with a different seed (the noise) comes up looking different. The text promt makes it decide to find a cow in the noise rather than a tree, for example.

The errors it makes help demonstate how it works. The other day I got one where it tried to draw crossed arms but ended up merging the forearms together and not drawing hands at all. It "knows" that forearms attach to elbows, it just did it at both ends rather than adding hands on the other side. It didn't get that from an existing artwork. Speaking of hands, the mistakes it makes are unlike anything a human would make, but humans have trouble drawing hands for the same reason, they are an insanely complicated shape, with a million possible positions.
 
Dude. The difference between a computer and a human doing it. The computer will copy it perfectly because it just spits out a copy of the original - hence: copy machine. The human cannot just do that. There will always be variation. 2 people drawing the same picture from the same reference will not be exactly the same.

There are already examples of the same prompt done by different people generate the exact same art. And people getting copyrighted materials spat out by AI - exact to the original, except without all the copyright notices.

What you are talking about is the AI smashing different examples together to create what you prompted it to do... and it doesn't understand yet.
 
Last edited:
There are already examples of the same prompt done by different people generate the exact same art.

If you give the same model the same prompt and the same seed, it will indeed make the same image. If you have an example of this happening with different seeds, I'd like to see it.

And people getting copyrighted materials spat out by AI - exact to the original, except without all the copyright notices.

That can indeed happen but it's rare. Duplicate training data contributes to the problem. Normally to do that you would have to match the original image description in the dataset exactly, or find a totally unique element, and even then you get an oddly noisy copy. It shouldn't happen at all for more generic images that have descriptions that also appear on other similar images. That sounds like an easy enough problem to rectify.

I just don't agree with your characterization of how the images are generated. It's clearly transformative unless you are actively trying to trip it up and make it copy. It's not making a fancy collage.
 
The difference is the human element. Why pay for an artist to produce something when an AI with significantly lower costs can do some that’s “good enough”? Are you seriously not paying attention to the writer’s strike happening right now? The first one in over a decade? As for the art, why pay for someone to do something in their specific style—like Ralph McQuarrie, or Joe Johnston, or something like that, when you can have a computer scan their images and build a dataset out of that? Sure, a person could practice and develop a style similar to someone else’s, but that still requires the actual art skills. It still requires the same amount of human output.

Let’s put it this way. Let’s say you’ve got a prop you’ve kitbashed, or modeled yourself, or sculpted, or whatever. Sure, it’s “someone else’s design”, but you still made it. You start a run on the forum here. Next thing you know, you see someone on Etsy is selling cheap recasts of your work. They’re unfinished, there are seams and flaws in the cast, but some people are still more than happy to pay the much lower price for a close enough object. Do you see the problem? Do you see how AI is encroaching upon the human element of art and creativity? It can certainly be a good tool but it’s also unequivocally a very dangerous one that a lot of people in positions of power and wealth are more than happy to abuse for the sake of profit. It’s especially shocking for those of us in creative fields because we were always told “automation would come for the unskilled jobs first”. Now AI is on the brink of destroying the professions of so many. Writers, illustrators, concept artists, animators, voice actors, even actors. Why pay an up and coming actor that doesn’t have a lot of box-office draw yet when you can pay them almost nothing and slap James Dean’s face and voice on top of his? Or Orson Welles, or Jimmy Stewart?

Do you see the concern? I’m not asking you to agree with it, but just to see the point of view of those whose livelihoods are at stake.
 
I can't recall his screen name but a friend of mine who is a well known member here is one of the professional artists I know who has had his artwork stolen by AI and used against his wishes. If I can remember his screen name I'll tag him so you he can tell you his experience with this craziness. I also know a few other people whose photos were stolen and used on an AI site without their permission.

The other frightening thing is that it can generate incriminating images and evidence that have the potential to cause people to be wrongfully imprisoned. So if it doesn't nuke us first, someone with a vendetta can request/ program it to create false evidence against you.
 
They do it by stealing everyone's work to feed into their AI's. So they get the labor of talented people and then not having to pay those people. All those creating these AI's should be in jail for theft.

We need to remember that AI is basically just an advanced copy machine. It's a learning computer fed with the efforts of real people, but it has nothing of its own. It's a blank slate. We should be careful not to anthropomorphize AI, as it is basically just faking it. Unlike animals that have a personality of their own... the AI doesn't. It can mix and throw things together, but it can never create something new. And the fact that it has thought about how to end human existence shows that it is not yet self-aware enough to realize that it will kill itself in the process. So far... what people call AI is just a large repository of fed materials - much of it stolen.

Artists are suing. But programmers should be suing too, as AI is being fed their work regardless of the copyright notices. It is nothing but theft and those creating those AI knows it. They are in the process of the biggest criminal theft in human history and if such people are responsible for AI... then I have no faith actual AI will come with any conscience or understanding of right and wrong, when its creators doesn't even care.

Also, if they are successful with getting away with this theft, then copyright law is no longer valid and no one owns anything as you cannot enforce it through law.
Thieves disregarding copyright law is what destroyed my art career, while farming IT work out is what kept me from gaining employment when I switched to IT and got my A+ cert.

Between those and my health issues... I finally gave up on employment.

I can't recall his screen name but a friend of mine who is a well known member here is one of the professional artists I know who has had his artwork stolen by AI and used against his wishes. If I can remember his screen name I'll tag him so you he can tell you his experience with this craziness. I also know a few other people whose photos were stolen and used on an AI site without their permission.

The other frightening thing is that it can generate incriminating images and evidence that have the potential to cause people to be wrongfully imprisoned. So if it doesn't nuke us first, someone with a vendetta can request/ program it to create false evidence against you.
This. And an AI can give a happy damn if your work is stolen and you cannot make any money off of it. Nor does it care if you cannot pay your bills, get groceries, etc.
 
Last edited:
MEANWHILE everyone is excited to let someone else do their drudgery, until they're out of work.

This. What gets me is in a lot of interviews or marketing material behind the push for these programs, you will always see that ponce exclaiming, "These are just tools to make things easier, more efficient. People will have time to do what they want!" and then this follow-up, "Like what?" "Whatever they want!"

The unfortunate thing is that implication that all people have better and more fulfilling things to do than work, and the skills to do whatever they want has been proven dead false time and again through numerous studies. People need work. Great and small. Not everyone has the capabilities or passion to do anything else or more; they like being kept busy, it gives them purpose. Even the very people working on coding these programs. I have a few friends that do this line of work and I can't tell you just how many of them are some of the most boring, over-paid people I know. Outside of their work, which they're rightly proud of, they fill their lives with passionless hobbies and recreations, picked up and dropped at a whim, only because they have the time and money to.

Not to get political, but I believe all the unrest and violence in the world (especially in Western countries) that we're seeing increase at an alarming rate is a symptom of a greater dilemma that's been going on for the better part of the last century: the commodification of man. Something that started with de-industrialization with machines back in the 60's and 70's. Now, it's something more nebulous and intangible. Whether it be big business or government, to know that you're not of any use because of a block of text, meant to work longer and harder hours for more years, just to get by; that encroaching existential dread of being redundant in all walks of life is genuinely scary.

The only beacon of light out of this is the hope of localism, a rise of small, cottage businesses. Mom-and-Pop shops serving the individual needs of the community (maybe storefronts operating out of homes, too). A real step back into how it used to be done for centuries.
 
Last edited:
The difference is the human element. Why pay for an artist to produce something when an AI with significantly lower costs can do some that’s “good enough”? Are you seriously not paying attention to the writer’s strike happening right now? The first one in over a decade? As for the art, why pay for someone to do something in their specific style—like Ralph McQuarrie, or Joe Johnston, or something like that, when you can have a computer scan their images and build a dataset out of that? Sure, a person could practice and develop a style similar to someone else’s, but that still requires the actual art skills. It still requires the same amount of human output.

Let’s put it this way. Let’s say you’ve got a prop you’ve kitbashed, or modeled yourself, or sculpted, or whatever. Sure, it’s “someone else’s design”, but you still made it. You start a run on the forum here. Next thing you know, you see someone on Etsy is selling cheap recasts of your work. They’re unfinished, there are seams and flaws in the cast, but some people are still more than happy to pay the much lower price for a close enough object. Do you see the problem? Do you see how AI is encroaching upon the human element of art and creativity? It can certainly be a good tool but it’s also unequivocally a very dangerous one that a lot of people in positions of power and wealth are more than happy to abuse for the sake of profit. It’s especially shocking for those of us in creative fields because we were always told “automation would come for the unskilled jobs first”. Now AI is on the brink of destroying the professions of so many. Writers, illustrators, concept artists, animators, voice actors, even actors. Why pay an up and coming actor that doesn’t have a lot of box-office draw yet when you can pay them almost nothing and slap James Dean’s face and voice on top of his? Or Orson Welles, or Jimmy Stewart?

Do you see the concern? I’m not asking you to agree with it, but just to see the point of view of those whose livelihoods are at stake.

Hold it, you've switched topics. We were discussing whether AI generated Art is copying the art in its data set or creating something new. The danger of new technology to existing fields is a different subject and one I'm not disagreeing with. We are right in the beginning of a major tech shift. That said, it's a bit early to panic. I'm confident there will be many attempts to replace people that will fall flat on their face, we just don't know which ones they are yet. Keep in mind the Copyright office has ruled that pure AI art can't be copyrighted, it has to be transformed by a human later, so that should help quite a bit. There will be an increase in efficiency, so less people can do the same work, but that's nothing new. But that's not much comfort to the people made redundant.

For the record, the writers strike isn't primarily about AI scripts, but including it did make for some great publicity. It's way more interesting to talk about than streaming royalties.

In the end, al this stuff we are calling AI today, isn't actually Artificial Intelligence at all, we are still in the Machine Learning phase. Might not get to real AI in our lifetime, if ever.
 
This is the cooling system of a Quantum Computer (the pic didn't say which one):

a8qey7V_460s.jpg
 
This. What gets me is in a lot of interviews or marketing material behind the push for these programs, you will always see that ponce exclaiming, "These are just tools to make things easier, more efficient. People will have time to do what they want!" and then this follow-up, "Like what?" "Whatever they want!"

We are getting propaganda and not journalism.

Any legit interviewer would say ". . . AND WHAT REPLACES THE HUMAN WORKER'S MISSING PAYCHECK, YOU FRAGGING IDIOT?"
 
Last edited:
Universe is about 13.6B years old with about 98% of all the stars (nuclear reactors) created at the same time. Earth, in our solar system, has most all the known elements in the universe. But in very rare and significantly unique percentages. Earth is about 4.5B years old.

Logical that alien life does exist on some planets that orbit their suns similar to earth. Another earth must exist in the infinite number of solar systems in the infinite volume of space.

The problem is even at the speed of light, sufficient travel time is not available Even from the nearest star. Unless one can ”fold” space, all the aliens can never visit each other. Earth will last another 5B years before our sun becomes a white dwarf.
 
Universe is about 13.6B years old with about 98% of all the stars (nuclear reactors) created at the same time. Earth, in our solar system, has most all the known elements in the universe. But in very rare and significantly unique percentages. Earth is about 4.5B years old.

Logical that alien life does exist on some planets that orbit their suns similar to earth. Another earth must exist in the infinite number of solar systems in the infinite volume of space.

The problem is even at the speed of light, sufficient travel time is not available Even from the nearest star. Unless one can ”fold” space, all the aliens can never visit each other. Earth will last another 5B years before our sun becomes a white dwarf.
A few things:

1) I would argue that 98 percent of stars of all the stars were not created at the same time; otherwise, there would not be any planets. As for the big bang, that would have formed hydrogen and helium, but not much else. Stars serve as furnaces for making elements: hydrogen becomes helium, then carbon, neon, oxygen, silicon and finally iron. Those happen particularly with the larger super and hypergiants which would have been not just far more plentiful just after the big bang, but whose existences would probably have been shorter and allowed for their material to be returned to the universe sooner. Their supernovae would have produced the elements that then could come together to form rocky asteroids, moons and planets, along with atmospheric gasses and liquid water (vital for life).

It would take quite a bit of time for those stars (even as short lived as they were) to blow off their outer shells in supernovae or in the death throes of normal stars. And these "stellar nurseries" (very dense clouds of molecular gasses) would need time to collect and form.

2) If such a "second earth" existed, nothing says that it didn't form earlier than our planet, and its' sun has already gone through its' death throes.

3) We have only been studying our sun's chemical makeup for about roughly a century; while from our observatiosn we think we know what will transpire, we have recently seen behavior out o four own star that is worrisome. An increase on solar flares, partcularly CME's (Coronal Mass Ejections) have scientists justifiably concerned that our sun may not be aging the way we thought it would. Given that , one reason "alien life" hasn't been seen is that the stars we see now in the night sky are the light from millions of years ago, and that those stars are already dead.
 
Thanks pengbuzz for your input. I forgot about light travel from dead stars.

Need to do some research regarding how that fact is explained by astronomers who describe the existence of specific stars. Same for their position on the stars all having the same approximate birthday.
 
We are getting propaganda and not journalism.

Any legit interviewer would say ". . . AND WHAT REPLACES THE HUMAN WORKER'S MISSING PAYCHECK, YOU FRAGGING IDIOT?"
Tech was "supposed" to serve us! We know, by now, that we've become slaves of that tech in the name of "convenience":rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
The Utopia was this one: (Elysium)
S0XQK8I3Gw1Iwn6wHaFf?w=216&h=180&c=7&r=0&o=5&pid=1.jpg

^^
That's the world they're trying to sell you. The personal AI assistant/robot. You don't have to work anymore because, according to them, tech will be so sophisticated that all of the jobs/services will be done, automatically, by machines:eek::eek::oops::oops:

It's a class war (not a race/gender war). People don't understand how complex is a society. If almost everyone is not working who's going to pay for...let's say pensions; just to name one?

AI will have difficulty replacing 3 types of jobs: agriculture, mining and manufacturing. We've seen the Apple/Google food store where you have minimum staff (cleaners and shelve fillers) for now, since those could be replaced easily by automation.
Robot surgeons are as capable of operating on a patient as a real surgeon...and, it seems, that AI is better at interpreting Xray (cancerous growth or others) than a human.

But, the main thing that they are not telling you is that AI will be the ultimate surveillance/information tool of them all!!
From facial/voice recognition to looking into your body language and other things that Sci-Fi is made off.

Look at WADU at JPMorgan (numerous articles on the Web), here's an "Hors-d' oeuvre":


"In spring 2020, JPMorgan Chase, America’s biggest bank, rolled out its proprietary Workforce Activity Data Utility (WADU), which collects data about its employees. Workers complain that management is using WADU to maintain “lists” that track their behavior – such as missing work – but the bank claims such systems are necessary for compliance with US Security and Exchange Commission rules and other banking regulations. Reed Alexander reports for Business Insider UK that WADU has driven employees to try to avoid being monitored, but that cuts into their productivity. This case history – though based on only a few interviews and leaked documents – probes the question: What happens when a company’s surveillance policies challenge its employees’ personal boundaries?"

And: "What happens when an entity's surveillance policies challenge its population's personal boundaries? (that I will not name).
 
Last edited:
Tech was "supposed" to serve us! We know, by now, that we've become slaves of that tech in the name of "convenience":rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
The Utopia was this one: (Elysium)
View attachment 1701372
^^
That's the world they're trying to sell you. The personal AI assistant/robot. You don't have to work anymore because, according to them, tech will be so sophisticated that all of the jobs/services will be done, automatically, by machines:eek::eek::oops::oops:

It's a class war (not a race/gender war). People don't understand how complex is a society. If almost everyone is not working who's going to pay for...let's say pensions; just to name one?

AI will have difficulty replacing 3 types of jobs: agriculture, mining and manufacturing. We've seen the Apple/Google food store where you have minimum staff (cleaners and shelve fillers) for now, since those could be replaced easily by automation.
Robot surgeons are as capable of operating on a patient as a real surgeon...and, it seems, that AI is better at interpreting Xray (cancerous growth or others) than a human.

But, the main thing that they are not telling you is that AI will be the ultimate surveillance/information tool of them all!!
From facial/voice recognition to looking into your body language and other things that Sci-Fi is made off.

Look at WADU at JPMorgan (numerous articles on the Web), here's an "Hors-d' oeuvre":


"In spring 2020, JPMorgan Chase, America’s biggest bank, rolled out its proprietary Workforce Activity Data Utility (WADU), which collects data about its employees. Workers complain that management is using WADU to maintain “lists” that track their behavior – such as missing work – but the bank claims such systems are necessary for compliance with US Security and Exchange Commission rules and other banking regulations. Reed Alexander reports for Business Insider UK that WADU has driven employees to try to avoid being monitored, but that cuts into their productivity. This case history – though based on only a few interviews and leaked documents – probes the question: What happens when a company’s surveillance policies challenge its employees’ personal boundaries?"

And: "What happens when an entity's surveillance policies challenge its population's personal boundaries? (that I will not name).
There's already been multiple warnings about the serious potential blowback of AI and the speed at which it's developing, and more importantly; at the swift speed it's been introduced into the wild and how it's used full-time by major corporations.

A few years prior to Covid I mentioned how there's absolutely no reason for phone makers, app developers and cell carriers to NOT listen-in to phones on a regular basis and pick up anything that can be processed and sold to corporations and Governments. Many have mentioned this before - and since - and most people still either laugh or shrug. Because they're still under the assumption that there needs to be someone on the other end, in a dark room, listening with headphones, frowning while taking diligent notes. Just like in the movies.

Now it's not uncommon the verbally talk about a topic that hasn't been discussed before, or ever searched online - and conveniently get a related ad for said topic, either as sponsored posts on socials or banners on a website in the hours following that discussion. And the reaction from those same people who either laugh or shrug generally revolves around "Hmm, that's strange" or "Isn't that crazy?! Ha ha ha!"

The point is that there's now a small majority of people who don't care, no matter how detrimental it gets in the future, because it doesn't affect them today. And if that wasn't enough, those people don't like or want to be proven wrong. It doesn't matter how clear or concise or articulate or passionate an individual can be in trying to demonstrate a potential threat, there's a threshold of individuals who would rather die ignorant than be proven wrong. It's the equivalent of jumping out of a plane at ten thousand feet without a parachute and going "See? No problem, idiot!" after a thousand feet.

And what I've come to accept in the last few years is that they're right.

Nothing happens when jumping out at ten thousand feet without a parachute - after a thousand feet. Or 5 thousand. Or nine thousand. Willful ignorance is the new norm, and attempting to change that comes with risks.

It's partly the sum of selfishness, victimhood, narcissism and a buffet of other socially engineered conditions that have helped create THE perfect environment for hardcore Corporatocracy to thrive. And at the core of all of it is AI. AI-tabulated data funneled down to easy-to-read line items for money-people to analyze and make decisions. Decisions like how people should spend their allocated credits and what other yacht should I buy this weekend.

For those who made it this far and think this is crazy: you are right. It is. And tomorrow will be just like today, which is just like yesterday. And that's the proof that this is crazy.

--

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll return to manufacturing my emergency tinfoil hats for the upcoming implementation of 6G cell towers.


P.s. I wonder what would come out of AI and CRISPR getting together and having fun?
<Laughter! Shrug.>
 
The point is that there's now a small majority of people who don't care, no matter how detrimental it gets in the future, because it doesn't affect them today. And if that wasn't enough, those people don't like or want to be proven wrong. It doesn't matter how clear or concise or articulate or passionate an individual can be in trying to demonstrate a potential threat, there's a threshold of individuals who would rather die ignorant than be proven wrong. It's the equivalent of jumping out of a plane at ten thousand feet without a parachute and going "See? No problem, idiot!" after a thousand feet.

And what I've come to accept in the last few years is that they're right.

Nothing happens when jumping out at ten thousand feet without a parachute - after a thousand feet. Or 5 thousand. Or nine thousand. Willful ignorance is the new norm, and attempting to change that comes with risks.
Yeah.... then ineviably comes that last 5 feet and the ground rushing at them.
 
Tech was "supposed" to serve us! We know, by now, that we've become slaves of that tech in the name of "convenience":rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
The Utopia was this one: (Elysium)
View attachment 1701372
^^
That's the world they're trying to sell you. The personal AI assistant/robot. You don't have to work anymore because, according to them, tech will be so sophisticated that all of the jobs/services will be done, automatically, by machines:eek::eek::oops::oops:

It's a class war (not a race/gender war). People don't understand how complex is a society. If almost everyone is not working who's going to pay for...let's say pensions; just to name one?

AI will have difficulty replacing 3 types of jobs: agriculture, mining and manufacturing. We've seen the Apple/Google food store where you have minimum staff (cleaners and shelve fillers) for now, since those could be replaced easily by automation.
Robot surgeons are as capable of operating on a patient as a real surgeon...and, it seems, that AI is better at interpreting Xray (cancerous growth or others) than a human.

But, the main thing that they are not telling you is that AI will be the ultimate surveillance/information tool of them all!!
From facial/voice recognition to looking into your body language and other things that Sci-Fi is made off.

Look at WADU at JPMorgan (numerous articles on the Web), here's an "Hors-d' oeuvre":


"In spring 2020, JPMorgan Chase, America’s biggest bank, rolled out its proprietary Workforce Activity Data Utility (WADU), which collects data about its employees. Workers complain that management is using WADU to maintain “lists” that track their behavior – such as missing work – but the bank claims such systems are necessary for compliance with US Security and Exchange Commission rules and other banking regulations. Reed Alexander reports for Business Insider UK that WADU has driven employees to try to avoid being monitored, but that cuts into their productivity. This case history – though based on only a few interviews and leaked documents – probes the question: What happens when a company’s surveillance policies challenge its employees’ personal boundaries?"

And: "What happens when an entity's surveillance policies challenge its population's personal boundaries? (that I will not name).

No problem with facts & statistics tracking my work ethic. Follow the employer’s rules you agreed to when hired. Went to the court house to get a work permit at 14 because I needed A little more cash than earned by cutting lawns. If one is not sick, you get up in the morning and go to work. Simple: “Even a Cave Man can do it”
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top