zurew

If your feel that you are seriously hurt, you should go and get therapy.

This is demonstrably false, if what you say would be true, then no AI would be workable or usable or valuable at all, but this is not the case, obviously. Here is a relevant question regarding this topic: What would change your mind on this topic, what is needed here? What arguments? (I feel that you haven't addressed my arguments [for example the facial expression one], and the only productive thing we can do here , is to get into specifics. If you are willing to go to specifics , then i am more than happy to do so). I also feel that I tried to engage with your main points, but I haven't got any feedback on those.

This does not necessarily follows. This is just one interpretation of God, why would you be fixated on the negative interpretation rather than a more inspiring and positive interpretation? No discrimination between experiences != no free will for eternity, it can contain that, but it contains infinitely more stuff as well, you can't just ignore the other stuff.

Not necessarily. If there is a conflict between a peaceful vs a militarily equipped more agressive and hostile society, in that case the probability that the hostile one will win is almost 100%, would you call that the " cleansing agent of bad" or would you call that progress? I don't see how war is a necessity for progress or development. I think, that the positive effects a war can create could be achieved otherwise, because those effects are not exclusive to war only .

@Danioover9000 Good share. Conspiracy theorists are bad at pattern recognition , what they are doing is basically pattern projection (which is this: taking 1 event, and taking random points and projecting a pattern onto those points). There is a difference between recognizing repeating patterns (this is what the AI is doing, because it is trained on sometimes thousands and other times on a million different data and it needs to find the common pattern between those) and between people who see 1 happening and assume a random pattern on that event/happening. We don't agree on the failing part, I mean its already won a fucking art competition, and again, It can already recognize certain emotions on your face, it can recognize the structure of your face, It can recognize actions. It doesn't need to have a "real" understanding of emotions to recognize emotions on a face or to recognize certain actions, so how do you explain how it is capable to do that? It can already create art that shows certain emotions like happiness, anger , sadness etc. , so what other emotions are we talking about, that it isn't capable creating/showing? It can do a lot of stuff just with pattern recognition without any need for abstract understanding. Simple pattern recognition alone, can do a lot. Whatever human art you consider good based on your subjective preferences has certain patterns to it, that are tangible and recognizable. Given enough quality data, it will be able to recognize those patterns better and better until it grasps most of it. So I don't see how "real" understanding or free will is needed here.

If you want to make an argument that they aren't separable, that would just make my argument stronger about AI will be able to replace most human artists, because how do you explain otherwise, why can an AI show certain emotions through facial expression ? It can also recognize certain emotions from just looking at your face,my explanation is this: because there are certain patterns to it, and learning those patterns is enough without any need for "real" understanding.

I know the context here is only actualized.org, but a lot of actualized.org ideas are not unique to only actualized.org, so the butterfly effect is even greater than these numbers. Of course, it would be much harder to count more channels into this mix.

I think there is a difference between having an abstract understanding what emotions are - through empathy, and having a structural understanding of what certain emotions are when they are put into certain contexts (lets be it movies, clips, stories or art or facial expressions). Lets take facial expressions for example. While an AI not fully understand what emotions are, it can understand certain patterns to certain emotions when it comes to being able to show those emotions on a face. Notice that it doesn't need to understand emotions in an abstract way, to be able to show certain emotions on a face. But lets get to specific examples. Which one was created by a human vs Which one was created by an AI?

What makes an art meaningful and satisfying in your opinion?

Thanks.

Oh okay, ty, will check it out. Edit: Yeah i remember now: your main point was, that they lack free will , therefore they aren't creative (because your definition of creative contains the concept of free will) and your other point was this: an AI generated image is missing something: they all look the same and feel the same. I think we should focus on the 'how it feels' part (if you want to continue the discussion). I assume, that your feeling(s) about those images are coming from you knowing beforehand who/what created that particular image. If that assumption isn't true, i would be curious to explore this question more deeper.

Still waiting for an argument that isn't based on vague concepts and 10000 assumptions.

But how many people are buying handmade shoes nowadays? That market is almost extinct, and lets not forget that most people who were making handmade shoes back then, were forced to change profession. Who is a genuine artist for you? Michelangelo? If you set the bar that high, then we only talk about exceptional people who occupy 0.0001% of the current art market, so even if we assume that AI won't be able to produce such quality, we are still talking about AI replacing 99%+ of the current market. A general artist can't produce much better quality art compared to what an AI can and will (if we only focus on AI's best creations). Lets dig deeper here, because we are scratching the surface with very vague concepts and assumptions. Can you show us the difference(s) between a human vs AI generated image. Like pick one art/image that was produced by a human and do the same with an AI, and then show us your breakdown with specific points and critiques.

@Space Yeah, they are AI generated, but they were generated in a separate way and then a guy connected them together. https://www.reddit.com/r/dalle2/comments/u872dz/using_dalle_2_to_imagine_what_weirdness/

Yes, you are, and you have a lot of seemingly unfounded assumptions about this topic. You assume, that an AI will need a human brain level complexity in order to be able to generate whatever art is in your mind. So far it seems that it can generate pretty stunning images and sometimes complex artworks without any need for human brain level complexity, so based on what it can do now, and how it is trained it seems more reasonable to assume that it will be able to produce whatever art a human can produce. This seems more like a rant than an argument. We could do a new kind of turing test here (just with images, where we test if you could tell whether the image/artwork was produced by a human or an AI). Take a look at these (here you will find famous paintings expanded with DALL-E 2) https://80.lv/articles/famous-paintings-expanded-with-dall-e-2/ All credit goes to the AI. But on a serious note,unfortunately I don't know the credits,because i saved that image a long time ago.

AI is most likely gonna replace most artists in the next decade or so, because the current quality is just the start, now more and more company see a big business in it, and the competition is getting bigger and stronger and it drives the development pretty well. I haven't seen any good argument yet, why an AI wouldn't be able to do 99% or 100% of the things in the future, that human artists do right now. What structural limitation an AI has that won't allow it to do certain things that a human artist can? Before answering these questions we have to remember some things here: Depending on what company we are talking about, you can very very specifically give information to the AI what you want to create (the same way if you would go to an artist) Given enough training time and data, it can basically learn any style It can generate photorealistic images right now When you generate an image you can further edit that image with the AI, you can give specific instructions what you want to change and how you want to modify it or if you want to create new images that are very similar to the image that you created before, you can do that as well Most people will be able to use this AI, without any specific qualification or knowledge needed to create art, and people will use it, because it will be much cheaper than to hire an artist There are some bad images, but there are some beautiful images as well, so structurally its capable to generate stunning images if it is trained on enough data. Also, this is just the beginning, as time goes by it will get better and better and more advanced. What about these images?

Thats a strong statement. How is the government paying a little bit more %, leads to dystopia? Competition won't be lost if the government start to pay more (not all). Universities will make money the same way they do now, the only difference will be that a littile bit more % will be paid by the government compared to now. A littile bit of a change at a time doesn't necessarily lead to backlash. Also empirically this just isn't true if we look at other countries that already adopted this strategy.

@Devin Most countries who adopted "the free college" or "the making college more accessible" strategy are doing it from taxes. So yeah, the initial downside could be that people will have to pay more taxes, however thats not necessarily a downside longterm, because if it has a positive effect on the country's economy, then it will be beneficial for most people, even for people who don't have kids who will go to college. I will concede my point about making it completely free for now, because to my knowledge, there is no clear stat that shows that this is a much better strategy, however I will stay with this point: Government funding some % of university fees seems a good strategy to me, becuase competition between universities won't be lost but on the otherhand, middle-class and lower-class citizens will be able to access college more easily and people won't need to this heavily focus on how they will be able to pay back giant student loans after they graduate. Why do you equate the opportunity that exist in the US primarily to the free market system?

@DevinUniversity incentivisation don't have to exclusively come from the money that the students pay.

@DevinSo your strongest point is that universities make more money,so it worth it?

How do they get better education compared to giving everyone free education? They study at the same place, with the same people the only difference is that they don't need to pay for it, but they don't get better education. The problem is that if we go by your way, you are only optimizing for 0.001 people (geniuses) and rich people. That way you are polarizing people much more and you make the gap between the rich and poor even bigger and people who want to study but can't afford it will lose the opportunity to get educated and maybe the opporunity to get out of poverty. If you want a somewhat workable democracy and if you want as many educated people around you as possible and if you want an educated society, then you shouldn't put high quality education behind a paywall.

Why would you assume, that student loan is the reason, or that student loan is one of the biggest reason why the US economy is thriving, compared to other countries? First of all, if you can get into a top level university (no matter if you can go there for free or not) you are not dumb at all. Its not about being dumb or smart, but more about giving more opportunity to people who are smart, but can't afford it.

Ambiguity is the problem where Carl is pointing to. Even you don't know yourself what Nick means when he is making a statement. If someone is that vague, he leaves the door open for speculation, and thats what Nick is doing here and thats the problem. Its impossible to properly evaluate his sentences because he is not being specific enough. Its a problem because being that vague you still influence people, but at the same time, you cannot hold that particular person accountable, because of the ambiguity.

Yeah unfortunately its really hard and the worst part is that even if I stand with my point (that one should judge a teacher based on what quality students he/she generates), its easy nowadays to generate fake testimonials and fake reviews. Yeah, agreed.

Achieving something doesn't automatically guarantee that you will be qualified enough to teach other people with completely different skills and people who are walking on a completely different path than you. A very simple example is with sports. Just because you become a world champion at something you won't automatically become the best teacher or won't necessarily will be equipped enough to be even a normal teacher at all. Being a teacher of something often times requires a different skillset than achieving that very thing. Teaching vs executing. The main achievement that should matter when it comes to picking a teacher is looking at what quality students he generates/creates. Thats how one should judge how good that particular teacher is. If the success rate is very high, when you look at that particular teacher, then you can confidently say, that what he/she teaches and how he/she teaches is effective and informative and its working. Simply check how Andrew became wealthy (what methods he used [creating a cam girl business and creating a casino business]) and then check what he teaches you and how he wants to make you rich. Those two things are not compatible, so he is not as qualified as he seems to be.