Porn already made young men forget what women actually look like naked, and Zoomers are having less sex than any other generation before it.

Now with AI, they'll think actual women they know all look like porn stars the data will be building the images on.

I actually used Clothoff on that lawyer picture and decided it's a bad idea to post an AI generated nude of a lawyer

It works ok but gave her gigantic tits

Hey nothing wrong with that ! I just tried it and it works pretty hilariously

Great! now do her next :fullofwin:

My Instagram explore page is now full of "AI influencers" completely flawless and almost realistic people. And people actually interact with them like real people.. wtf... accounts probably run by a bunch of pervy dudes role playing as beautiful women

No different than those "talk to a hot Real woman today" ads of 2000 and 2010.
Some hot babe uploads slutty photos, but all the conversation was run by males. Women are boring to talk to, a dude talking to a dude knows exactly what kind of sick disgusting things they want to hear.

Profit.

is that your side hustle!? DONT TALK TO ME AGAIN DONK!:QQ:

I knew there was a reason I liked listening to whatever donk says so much. Dammit.

what do you mean "but" :pokerface: Kappa :troll:

So I'm hired by a broker to find angel investors to invest in an AI startup.

After watching the presentation that they prepared, I think my mind was blown by how far generative AI is going.

The question I have now is, what kind of value proposition can I honestly assign to such a thing. The AI guru they hired has a background in Google and he's telling all the fancy shit. But my thought really goes down to, how do you value creative work from here on out?

Say when a writer writes a story or screenplay, you use the time that it takes to write that shit and form like the absolute bottom basis and then formulate the potential of such a book and whatever. Because regardless how good or bad the story/screenplay is, it takes an x amount of work to have that thing done.

But in AI, all you need is to feed the character, the background and context that you are trying to portray, the AI spit out a full story within mere minutes if not seconds. Sure, we can debate how good the story is and whatever, but the value of time is shattered.

Of course, the presentation is carefully crafted to make it seem as cool as possible, but still... if it takes the system seconds to come up with the end product, and we can actually profit from it by charging the client just a dollar or two on it, what value does creativity have?

I've always thought creativity is the final frontier and last sanctuary of human vs. AI, but I guess I'm wrong. At the end, it's not about what's the best, it's about a convenient product at a price people can afford.

Hasn't this been true for decades already on another scale though? I mean, someone can spend years expertly crafting a nuanced story full of amazing writing and sell it to a movie company who hires the best actors and director to make the movie and make less money than another person who just happened to film a football going into a man's groin.

With the way generative AI works, I really do not consider it to be "createive work". The AI company uses existing data to train the shxt out of their system, and then uses all that existing data to cobble something together. They are creating "new" content alright, but it isn't "creative" or "novel".

If the system doesn't get any useful training data to train its generative model, it doesn't know how to produce any of its outputs. NY Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement and profitting off of it. The lawsuit is still gonna take a long time to conclude, but if the verdict is in favour of NY Times, it is gonna become a monumental precedence on how generative AI can continue to evolve. At that point, the cost of producing new generative AI content will almost certainly include the cost to acquire all that training data.

As to the value of the AI-generated content, it is gonna be determined by how much the market is willing to pay, and how greedy the AI companies want to be.

that's exactly how we work as well dude.

Input -> output -> input -> output etc.

except the data you input into yourself isnt a mass amount. you just go to school and read wikipedia and watch youtube and absorb bits of info very inefficiently, and think/feel like you have some independent significance, but you do not. you're just a neuron in society. AI is becoming the brain. It is absorbing you. You're part of the input.

You don't consider it creative, only because you see what it is referencing and learning off of.

Nothing you do is creative either. you just don't remember what you are referencing or learnt. but if i could read your subconscious, your memory and history and mind like a book, it would be very obvious what you are referencing as well.

that will never happen dude.

intelligent life that advances and spreads is inherently structured like a pyramid. It is ingrained into our DNA and nature.

we made AI in our image.

If it ever shifts hands, it will just go to AI lol. or a cybernetic future elite human-robot.

whatever. still something being the 1% and everything else under it.

that is the hierarchy of the universe.

if anything the universe is feudal. We just haven't discovered our place yet.

now there might be a transitory period where the shift happens, to us it might be a few lifetimes or so, a period where things seem like utopia, but in the grand scheme of things, when everything normalizes and inefficiencies are ironed out, the pyramid will be reestablished and more solid than ever. It's in those transitory periods where you can go from peasant to emperor.

k

Music over the past 20 years or so is a prime example of tech taking over creativity, and I think AI will have the capacity to take a similar route

There is an interesting show on Netflix called Pop century or sonthing and one of the episodes is on auto-tune, they dig into the history a little bit of music production/“over production” referencing the use of auto tune etc (which is wayyyy older than T-pain using it btw)

In that episode they have a producer who worked with dozens of the best artists of all time and he said that by far, the best artist he had ever worked with was David Bowie in that David would come into the studio and record songs in a SINGLE TAKE, which is totally amazing.

Then you fast forward to totally bullshit pop songs now a days and they record/re-record basic fucking chorus lines like “ok come on” 50 times and then tweak it digitally until it’s perfect.

Ai will be no different

I think with AI as well, there will be a acceptance of sonthing being “good enough”

Michelangelo paints the Sistine chapel over a decade with the most intricate, incredible detail imaginable. Painstakingly drawing facial structures, bones in hands, etc.

AI could probably generate a comparable scene in seconds, however the detail would probably clouded and non-descript (for now) but to your average person, they’d look at it and be amazed and that would be good enough

This is pretty crazy. Done with Sora AI.

https://twitter.com/shykids/status/1...etUser=shykids

This is pretty impressive (but not perfect)

A video like this wouldn't be worthy of scrutiny, but in the future if you ever see someone say something questionable on video, you will absolutely have to take a moment to scrutinize it and look for the clues that it's AI generated. Impressive but scary

That's actually very impressive.

the picture was more impressive than the animation which was done by another AI.

Nah, still images of people is pretty much nearly perfect now, except for the hands. Always look at the hands.

Elon tries to troll twitter with AI images of Kamala dressing like a communist

Got to love that the comeback was also made with twitter AI

https://i.imgur.com/I1QKZFg.png

I gotta say, that's a good reverse