Like Joining a Game Where Everyone is Using Aimbot and Winning From Pure Skill
Like Joining a Game Where Everyone is Using Aimbot and Winning From Pure Skill
Source (Via Xcancel)
122 comments
-
This is what will be so sad for the future. I though art was dead years ago, but it's truly dead now
-
The analogy sucks because it implies AI is in any way beneficial.
-
Generative AI or AI in general?
Because AI has tons of uses that are actually very beneficial.
-
AI is a misnomer anyhow. It's been pretty definitively proven that these machines aren't using intelligence of any kind, just really efficient search algorithms that are designed to smash things together in a way that looks like something resembling human speech and human made art. But that is the absolute limit of their ability and their potential.
-
Why do people act like generative AI has no uses? AlphaFold2 was a generational leap in protein folding. Alphatensor was used to find previously unknown sparse matrix multiplication algorithms. These are all examples of generative ai being useful on a societal scale.
-
A very small example: First Person Shooters and other action games would be very boring without enemy AI.
-
You should be able to understand from the context of this post.
-
-
-
this is clear proof that AI art is soulless and real artists will always outperform AI
-
What about the very famous equivalent that happened like a year ago where someone won an art competition with an AI generated photo?
-
poor judges I suppose
-
-
-
As long as progress continues and humanity survives, computer generated art will eventually outperform humans. It's pretty obvious, as far as science knows you could just simulate a full human consciousness and pull images out of that somehow, but able to run that in parallel, never deteriorating, never tiring. It's not a matter of if "AI" can outperform humans, it's a matter of if humanity will survive to see that and how long it might take.
-
Explain art performance, chief.
-
It’s not a matter of if “AI” can outperform humans, it’s a matter of if humanity will survive to see that and how long it might take.
You are not judging what is here. The tech you speak of, that will surpass humans, does not exist. You are making up a Sci-Fi fantasy and acting like it is real. You could say it may perhaps, at some point, exist. At that point we might as well start talking about all sorts of other technically possible Sci-Fi technology which does not exist beyond fictional media.
Also, would simulating a human and then forcing them to work non-stop count as slavery? It would. You are advocating for the creation of synthetic slaves... But we should save moral judgement for when that technology is actually in horizon.
AI is a bad term because when people hear it they start imagining things that don't exist, and start operating in the imaginary, rather than what actually is here. Because what is here cannot go beyond what is already there, as is the nature of the minimization of the Loss Function.
-
No, because the best art isn't measured in skill, but in relevance to lived experiences
Until you can upload a bunch of brains and simulate them in full you can't capture that experience accurately, and you'll still have a hard time keeping it up to date
-
Tell me you don't understand how generative AI works.
As long as progress continues and humanity survives, computer generated art will eventually outperform humans. It’s pretty obvious, as far as science knows you could just simulate a full human consciousness and pull images out of that somehow, but able to run that in parallel, never deteriorating, never tiring. It’s not a matter of if “AI” can outperform humans, it’s a matter of if humanity will survive to see that and how long it might take.
That did it!
-
-
Real regrettable take, come back in 5 years for a nice snack
To the many, many, downvoters...you're completely insane if you think AI art which has been a thing for like 18 months won't improve to the point that it's better than flesh bag artists ever.
-
You clearly don't understand how these things work. AI gen is entirely dependent on human artists to create stuff for it to generate from. It can only ever try to be as good as the data sets that it uses to create its algorithm. It's not creating art. It's outputting a statistical array based on your keywords. This is also why ChatGPT can get math questions wrong. Because it's not doing calculations, which computers are really good at. It's generating a statistical array and averaging out from what its data set says should come next. And it's why training AI on AI art creates a cascading failure that corrupts the LLM. Because errors from the input become ingrained into the data set, and future errors compound on those previous errors.
Just like with video game graphics attempting to be realistic, there's effectively an upper limit on what these things can generate. As you approach a 1:1 approximation of the source material, hardware requirements to improve will increase exponentially and improvements will decrease exponentially. The jump between PS1 and PS2 graphics was gigantic, while the jump between PS4 and PS5 was nowhere near as big, but the differences in hardware between the PS1 and PS2 look tiny today. We used to marvel at the concept that anybody would ever need more than 256MB of RAM. Today I have 16GB and I just saw a game that had 32GB in its recommended hardware.
To be "better" than people at creating art, it would have to be based on an entirely different technology that doesn't exist yet. Besides, art isn't a product that can be defined in terms of quality. You can't be better at anime than everybody else. There's always going to be someone who likes shit-tier anime, and there's always going to be parents who like their 4 year old's drawing better than anything done by Picasso. That's why it's on the fridge.
-
flesh bag artists ever
Dehumanization. Great. What did the artists do for you to have them this much?
Also, do you have any idea of how back propagation works? Probably never heard of it, right?
-
-
It's proof of nothing really. Just because a drawn picture won once means squat. Also, AI can be used alongside drawing - for references for instance. It's a tool like any other. Once you start using it in shit ways, it results in shit art. Not to say it doesn"t have room to improve tho
Also, imagine if the situation were reversed and an AI drawing was entered instead to a drawing contest. People would be livid, instead of celebrating breaking the rules.
-
Also, imagine if the situation were reversed and an AI drawing was entered instead to a drawing contest. People would be livid, instead of celebrating breaking the rules.
Except that already happened, and people were livid. Your correct assessment of such a scenario says a lot more than your half hearted defences for AI art.
-
The only people I've ever heard say AI is good for "references" are people who aren't artists.
Because AI makes for LOUSY references. (Unless your art style specifically involves clothing pieces melding into each other without rhyme or reasons and cthonic horrors for hands and limbs.)
-
Just because a drawn picture won once means squat
True, a sample of one means nothing, statistically speaking.
AI can be used alongside drawing
Why would I want a function drawing for me if I'm trying to draw myself? In what step of the process would it make sense to use?
for references for instance
AI is notorious for not giving the details someone would pick a reference image for. Linkie
It’s a tool like any other
No they are not "a tool like any other". I do not understand how you could see going from drawing on a piece of paper to drawing much the same way on a screen as equivalent as to an auto complete function operated by typing words on one or two prompt boxes and adjusting a bunch of knobs.
Also, just out of curiosity, do you know how "back propagation" is, in the context of Machine Learning? And "Neuron" and "Learning"?
-
-
-
What a stupid fucking idea for a contest. "Press a button until something interesting pops out. Best button pusher wins." Glad it got subverted like that.
-
An AI generated contest.. thats the most low effort contest ever. Glad this person did what they did and used real skill.
-
It’s the opposite of the OP’s headline.
Aimbot works because being good at games is essentially bending your skills to match a simulation, aimbot can have the simulation parameters written into it.
LLMs are blenders for human-made content with zero understanding of why some art resonates and other art doesn’t. A human with decent skill will always outperform a LLM because the human knows what the ineffable qualities are that make a piece of art resonate.
-
100% yes but just because I really hate how everyone conflates AI with LLMs these days I have to say this: The LLM isn't generating the image, it's at most generating a prompt for an image generating AI (which you could also write yourself)
-
It's not useful to talk about the content that LLMs create in terms of whether they "understand it" or don't. How can you verify if an LLM understands what it's producing or not? Do you think it's possible that some future technology might have this understanding? Do humans understand everything they produce? (A lot of people get pretty far by bullshitting.)
Shouldn't your argument equally apply to aimbots? After all, does an aimbot really understand the strategy, the game, the je-ne-sais-quoi of high-level play?
-
-
What front end is this? Looks gorgeous
-
Is it not mono? It looks like mono.
Edit: oh I'm sleep deprived, I thought you said font.
-
I appreciate the enthusiasm
-
-
Nitter
-
Same one that I used to link to the source https://xcancel.com/
-
-
He's a modern day John Henry.
-
Haha, humans taking over AI jobs!
-
Somehow they invented a contest that’s more boring than watching paint dry.
-
I like the artwork, I approve of the message, and this gave me a chuckle.
But c'mon, like, it's against the rules. If you are annoyed by AI art being submitted to human art contests, you should be annoyed by this too.
The first time I read about AI art being submitted to a human contest and winning, I thought, "how drôle." Of course, now I see it violates the spirit of competition. AI art should have its own category -- and that doesn't just go one way. Like it or not, AI is a tool and if some people want to explore how to use it to make good content, let's let them do that in peace.
-
Generated art isn't art. Generative AI artists don't exist. Calling it a tool implies it helps in the execution of a task when all it actually does is shit out slop based on stolen training data.
-
You should try the AI Art Turing Test! 50 "art" pieces, you have to decide whether they were human or AI. I got about 70% when I did this.
-
-
Actually I don't have to be ok with anyone contributing to the burning down of the planet. I feel like adults should have a better understanding of morality than simply "its against the rules and is therefore wrong".
-
I think most people don't really develop moral reasoning past "I don't want to get punished" or, if you're lucky, "it's against the rules."
-
AI is not going anywhere. It's proved its use. We can limit its ability to be used by people, and we can put brakes on how much energy can be spent on training models, but it's not like we can un-create what we spent the last 15 years creating. The marginal cost of using an AI once trained is negligible. This is different from, say, driving a gas-powered car with the argument "the oil's already been extracted from the earth, might as well use it." Using an AI does not directly contribute to climate change. Supporting unethical AI companies may, though.
The real problem is that we are using non-green power sources. My area uses hydro, wind, and solar, so AI run and trained here has no climate impact.
-
No man what are you doing! We already used the "well actually it's bad because uhhh climate change" argument against cryptocurrencies, you can't double-dip like! When you hate on AI you're supposed to use the "but it's plagiarism" argument! Everyone knows that!
-
-
-
I'm shocked i haven't seen captchas of the form "choose which image is AI generated"
-
Instead they give you 9 AI Generated Images that kinda sorta look like the thing you're supposed to click on.
-
People who use Lemmy would be able to tell the difference most of the time, but the average person would have zero idea.
Just look at any of the YouTube videos with obviously AI generated clickbait thumbnails that get 10s of millions of views. Or all of the shitty obvious Photoshop thumbnails that existed before AI.
-
No, nope they wouldn't. Generally speaking when I explain why something posted here is AI, I get upvoted, when I explain why something is unlikely to be AI, I get at best controversial votes, while next to me a post with the equivalent of "I can tell by the pixels" is getting upvoted. It's very rare for someone to chime in and actually discuss the case in an exploratory manner.
There's already plenty of drama within the artist community over false AI allegations. Accusations from people who should know better than accuse someone of using AI because "the shading is too good while the hands are too bad". Why the hell would lemmy be better at this than artist twitter.
Here's a quick intro on how to spot AI art, and, crucially, how not to.
-
Yes everyone on lemmy is both mentally and physically superior to the average "normie", who is completely incapable of rational thought.
-
-
-
You cheated. Of course if you're an artist, you're going to make better art than AI.
-
it's like... yeah you can tweak every single parameter and build your own checkpoints and stack hundreds of extra networks on top of one another and that is certainly a skill, but creating art with intent is an entirely different skill. and the first one won't give you shit if the contest is about creating art with intent.
-
But is the outcome important part, or which skill was required to make it
-
-
Im pretty sure that's called cheating.
-
If you listen to the AI preachers at their pulpits, AI gen works the same way that people making art does, so how could it be cheating if they're the same thing?
-
one had decades to train, the other only a year or two (and a few libraries of content).
-
-
on stupid contests like these it's allowed
-
-
Prompt engineering is not easy. Getting something as good as a real artist's work is very hard, especially if you're not an artist. Of course actual art is going to win every time.
-
"Make cartoon cat like ghibli"
Lol oh yeah real fucking hard.
-
Prompt “engineering” goes to show that you can stick the word engineer on the end of anything to make it sound official and important. Talking to a chatbot is not engineering of any sort
-
The trick is the artist invested time
-
Yeah, a real picture engineer worked hard on it
-
-
"Prompt engineering" now that's a new one, what next? Prompt researching?
-
Vibe coding
-
-
i don't want to shit on someone's honbies but i will take dick from a Kamen Rider fanboy over a AI Prompt Engineer any day
-
Yeah, not only promting, but adjusting temperature, combining different checkpoints and loras, addding additional steps to upscale, redraw certain parts etc.
In the end its very much just a numbers game though, see if you got lucky after 100+ images
-
122 comments