I'm getting dms on instagram now

[junebug]

some DORK called @2beau keeps messaging me

 

[JDD8]

some DORK called @2beau keeps messaging me

eww block him

 

[Mystericus]

some DORK called @2beau keeps messaging me

When AI can infer human creativity (Via BCI's or hyper-personalized data-dumping to make the predication's significantly more accurate) to the true "full extent", is it then a means for human creativity, the same way a brush or an IDE is, or is it a replacement? Current AI models, and the subsequent media they produce from prompts, can't really be considered art; the AI is doing too much guessing of the human intent. But just imagine an AI which can perfectly understand your entire concept without relying on their own "logic", what do you think it is then? The same way i use a pencil to draw what my mind is picturing, an AI can understand that, and produce the correct output, without taking full creative reign. Wyt?

 

[Tax]

some DORK called @2beau keeps messaging me

You’re the dork lowk js block em

 

[junebug]

When AI can infer human creativity (Via BCI's or hyper-personalized data-dumping to make the predication's significantly more accurate) to the true "full extent", is it then a means for human creativity, the same way a brush or an IDE is, or is it a replacement? Current AI models, and the subsequent media they produce from prompts, can't really be considered art; the AI is doing too much guessing of the human intent. But just imagine an AI which can perfectly understand your entire concept without relying on their own "logic", what do you think it is then? The same way i use a pencil to draw what my mind is picturing, an AI can understand that, and produce the correct output, without taking full creative reign. Wyt?

High iq. I still think the high effort put into art is what makes it human. But it's a thought.

 

[Mystericus]

High iq. I still think the high effort put into art is what makes it human. But it's a thought.

What would you say for prodigy's then? Those who have an almost innate (even though it's just their brains predisposed capacity for XYZ task/aspect) ability to translate their concepts onto a piece of paper, effortlessly. This a deconstruct perspective which i hate but it's relevant enough: if it's effort that makes the art human, what does that make the truly gifted; who's to say effort can't come in the form of ones imagination opposed to their skill to translate that into painting/code/music etc - also if it's merely effort that attributes the humanity into art, what do you say for (I'm cringing at the concept but it's true nonetheless) so-called "prompt engineers" who've seriously put time & effort into learning how to manipulate an AI's response? Corny as it may sound it's not an easy task to master LLM prompting

Been thinking about this shit for hours now i can't stop

 

[junebug]

What would you say for prodigy's then? Those who have an almost innate (even though it's just their brains predisposed capacity for XYZ task/aspect) ability to translate their concepts onto a piece of paper, effortlessly. This a deconstruct perspective which i hate but it's relevant enough: if it's effort that makes the art human, what does that make the truly gifted; who's to say effort can't come in the form of ones imagination opposed to their skill to translate that into painting/code/music etc - also if it's merely effort that attributes the humanity into art, what do you say for (I'm cringing at the concept but it's true nonetheless) so-called "prompt engineers" who've seriously put time & effort into learning how to manipulate an AI's response? Corny as it may sound it's not an easy task to master LLM prompting

Been thinking about this shit for hours now i can't stop

I would say prodigies have innate "skill" while using AI compared to actually drawing has next to no skill. The average human will still exert a significant amount of energy making art, even if they are prodigious.

 

[Mystericus]

I would say prodigies have innate "skill" while using AI compared to actually drawing has next to no skill

Sure that's current state of "Make a picture of a house besides a lake no mistakes", this is thought experiment though & trying to predict AI's ability to understand and translate unique human thought. Which i do believe is the next hurdle in AI; understanding, when it becomes an integral part of your life (like it or not, it will), the benefactors will be those who can properly translate their ideas into an AI output? I think it's likely. BCI's would be the best way to ensure this but it's far off from what we're capable of now, data-dumping seems promising since it's their nature to predict - given enough data and said predictions become immaculate. A local-AI that's able to access all your habits, personal records, biomarkers, hormones, sleep cycle etc, would be ridiculously good at knowing what you're thinking & the exact output you want

The average human will still exert a significant amount of energy making art, even if they are prodigious.

This is true, but it's also the same logic for:

I'm cringing at the concept but it's true nonetheless) so-called "prompt engineers" who've seriously put time & effort into learning how to manipulate an AI's response? Corny as it may sound it's not an easy task to master LLM prompting

How is learning how to dot your thoughts onto paper in the form of a drawing fundamentally different than learning the mechanics of an LLM to output what you want? They're both means for human creativity that both take due time to master for the average person - if someone knows what they want, and how to get that exact output without their creativity being tarnished/lost in translation, is it really so different?

It's like i said earlier though: that's not where AI is right now, and for the time being, AI "art" is a farce. But with how fast it's all evolving, an inevitable mainstream educational shift to work in tandem with AI's, it's highly possible we may see this exact scenario

 

[junebug]

Sure that's current state of "Make a picture of a house besides a lake no mistakes", this is thought experiment though & trying to predict AI's ability to understand and translate unique human thought. Which i do believe is the next hurdle in AI; understanding, when it becomes an integral part of your life (like it or not, it will), the benefactors will be those who can properly translate their ideas into an AI output? I think it's likely. BCI's would be the best way to ensure this but it's far off from what we're capable of now, data-dumping seems promising since it's their nature to predict - given enough data and said predictions become immaculate. A local-AI that's able to access all your habits, personal records, biomarkers, hormones, sleep cycle etc, would be ridiculously good at knowing what you're thinking & the exact output you want

This is true, but it's also the same logic for:

How is learning how to dot your thoughts onto paper in the form of a drawing fundamentally different than learning the mechanics of an LLM to output what you want? They're both means for human creativity that both take due time to master for the average person - if someone knows what they want, and how to get that exact output without their creativity being tarnished/lost in translation, is it really so different?

It's like i said earlier though: that's not where AI is right now, and for the time being, AI "art" is a farce. But with how fast it's all evolving, an inevitable mainstream educational shift to work in tandem with AI's, it's highly possible we may see this exact scenario

I have a qualm with the latter half. Sure, fair enough, "prompt engineers" are good at commanding a machine to do things, but that's the same thing as being good st ordering around an illustrator as an author. You're not the illustrator. You're just a catalyst between your writing, your vision, and their drawing.

 

[2beau]

some DORK called @2beau keeps messaging me

I sent you a funny reel

 

[negative]

You have his IP just send mercenaries to his house

 

[Mystericus]

I have a qualm with the latter half. Sure, fair enough, "prompt engineers" are good at commanding a machine to do things, but that's the same thing as being good st ordering around an illustrator as an author. You're not the illustrator. You're just a catalyst between your writing, your vision, and their drawing.

*cough*

When AI can infer human creativity (Via BCI's or hyper-personalized data-dumping to make the predication's significantly more accurate) to the true "full extent", is it then a means for human creativity, the same way a brush or an IDE is, or is it a replacement? Current AI models, and the subsequent media they produce from prompts, can't really be considered art; the AI is doing too much guessing of the human intent. But just imagine an AI which can perfectly understand your entire concept without relying on their own "logic", what do you think it is then? The same way i use a pencil to draw what my mind is picturing, an AI can understand that, and produce the correct output, without taking full creative reign. Wyt?

I know what you mean though. But i can't see how it can be related to ordering humans - humans are autonomous, free-thinking (well at-least some) beings who's decisions are influenced by, well them. An LLM is completely different in this regard since they're not able to think for themselves; it's a complex predication model and nothing more. And without getting too iffy on the human brain stuff (We're also just highly complex prediction machines who evaluate past/present data to influence decisions), you can make the argument an AI can absorb enough of your brains nature using mountains of data to precisely output your idea without losing the original intent in the process. So when you "order" an AI that you've: ensured is familiar with your thought process, understood how to get accurate outputs after learning their mechanics, and retains enough of your idea without just blindly guessing the next sentence/image noise, it's hardly like when you tell an individual what to do, since the control discrepancy is massive in comparison. I mean, how do you know information isn't lost in-between the signals from your brain to the movement of your pen? I think coding is a better example of this since it's literally just telling a machine what to do; the "that's not real coding" debate boils down to outdated skills, since the core concept (making a machine what you want it to do) remains, isn't it the same? Guess this also depends if you can consider programming an art though, to a degree i think it is

 

[junebug]

*cough*

I know what you mean though. But i can't see how it can be related to ordering humans - humans are autonomous, free-thinking (well at-least some) beings who's decisions are influenced by, well them. An LLM is completely different in this regard since they're not able to think for themselves; it's a complex predication model and nothing more. And without getting too iffy on the human brain stuff (We're also just highly complex prediction machines who evaluate past/present data to influence decisions), you can make the argument an AI can absorb enough of your brains nature using mountains of data to precisely output your idea without losing the original intent in the process. So when you "order" an AI that you've: ensured is familiar with your thought process, understood how to get accurate outputs after learning their mechanics, and retains enough of your idea without just blindly guessing the next sentence/image noise, it's hardly like when you tell an individual what to do, since the control discrepancy is massive in comparison. I mean, how do you know information isn't lost in-between the signals from your brain to the movement? I think coding is a better example of this since it's literally just telling a machine what to do; the "that's not real coding" debate boils down to outdated skills, since the core concept (making a machine what you want it to do) remains, isn't it the same? Guess this also depends if you can consider programming an art though, to a degree i think it is

I see your point but I can't stop thinking of it as hiring an illustrator or commissioning an artist. Those people also absorb your idea, your picture, your references, and make it new. It's just free this time. I wouldn't commission an artist and claim the art as my own jus because I described to them what to draw.

 

[Mystericus]

I see your point but I can't stop thinking of it as hiring an illustrator or commissioning an artist. Those people also absorb your idea, your picture, your references, and make it new. It's just free this time. I wouldn't commission an artist and claim the art as my own jus because I described to them what to draw.

It's the understanding shit: truth is an LLM is able to know you better than you know yourself, certainly more than a human

i also get that since you do art this is akin to me invalidating something you hold close, but this:

Those people also absorb your idea, your picture, your references, and make it new. It's just free this time. I wouldn't commission an artist and claim the art as my own jus because I described to them what to draw.

The logic makes sense but you're thinking of AI's abilities too human-like here. Human-to-human creative transfer will always result in details being lost/assumed, and it's the same with AI rn, but AI's aren't human; they get more powerful each day, and soon enough, their ability (given enough data) to predict your behaviors will be scarily accurate - and once they're able to infer your true intent, ideas, and imagined result, when does credit shift from the AI to the human? Who's really doing the heavy lifting? Suppose i can relate it to digital art: when you fill in an object with a color, or use layering, use a symmetry tool, is it the computer who's enabling your creative output or is it you who's enabling the computer? Either way one doesn't work on their own

 

[curlyheadisciple]

some DORK called @2beau keeps messaging me

hello , lets meet uo for sexual intercourse?

 

[junebug]

It's the understanding shit: truth is an LLM is able to know you better than you know yourself, certainly more than a human

i also get that since you do art this is akin to me invalidating something you hold close, but this:

The logic makes sense but you're thinking of AI's abilities too human-like here. Human-to-human creative transfer will always result in details being lost/assumed, and it's the same with AI rn, but AI's aren't human; they get more powerful each day, and soon enough, their ability (given enough data) to predict your behaviors will be scarily accurate - and once they're able to infer your true intent, ideas, and imagined result, when does credit shift from the AI to the human? Who's really doing the heavy lifting? Suppose i can relate it to digital art: when you fill in an object with a color, or use layering, use a symmetry tool, is it the computer who's enabling your creative output or is it you who's enabling the computer? Either way one doesn't work on their own

Thought provoking. I'm gonna have to ponder this

 

[junebug]

hello , lets meet uo for sexual intercourse?

?!?!?

 

[curlyheadisciple]

?!?!?

do you agree? my cyrrent face is like my pfp , i think i am a canditate to have sex with you , do you agree

 

[Mystericus]

Thought provoking. I'm gonna have to ponder this

Been thinking about it for hours now and i still don't have a robust conclusion, I'll just outsource my brain to chatGPT #SamAltmanmaxxing

will just have to write down my thoughts & visit it at another time ig, boring

 

[Mystericus]

do you agree? my cyrrent face is like my pfp , i think i am a canditate to have sex with you , do you agree

Could you at-least remove the spaces in-between the commas

 

[curlyheadisciple]

Could you at-least remove the spaces in-between the commas

no cus when you have this much bonemass and angularity you dont care about how you type

 

[Mystericus]

no cus when you have this much bonemass and angularity you dont care about how you type

Start caring

 

[junebug]

do you agree? my cyrrent face is like my pfp , i think i am a canditate to have sex with you , do you agree

You look good, but I'm saving sex for marriage.
I'd ruin your genetics anyway.

 

[junebug]

Been thinking about it for hours now and i still don't have a robust conclusion, I'll just outsource my brain to chatGPT #SamAltmanmaxxing

will just have to write down my thoughts & visit it at another time ig, boring

No don't outsource it to a soulless machine!! PM me I'd delight in reading it all

 

[Mystericus]

No don't outsource it to a soulless machine!! PM me I'd delight in reading it all

All my documented thoughts are an unorganized mess tbh, AI bit was a joke but I'd have them format anything to be readable, otherwise there's zero coherency & just mess that I'm only able to understand

thinking linear is normie stuff anyways. It's like those maze-solving algorithms

 

[curlyheadisciple]

You look good, but I'm saving sex for marriage.
I'd ruin your genetics anyway.

how would u ruin my genes? youre cute

 

[junebug]

All my documented thoughts are an unorganized mess tbh, AI bit was a joke but I'd have them format anything to be readable, otherwise there's zero coherency & just mess that I'm only able to understand

thinking linear is normie stuff anyways. It's like those maze-solving algorithms

I'm okay with that. Send me whatever jargon you need to. You're an interesting person, I don't mind picking apart your brain

 

[junebug]

how would u ruin my genes? youre cute

No I'm not

 

[Mystericus]

I'm okay with that. Send me whatever jargon you need to. You're an interesting person, I don't mind picking apart your brain

When I've concluded this mess:

It's the understanding shit: truth is an LLM is able to know you better than you know yourself, certainly more than a human

i also get that since you do art this is akin to me invalidating something you hold close, but this:

The logic makes sense but you're thinking of AI's abilities too human-like here. Human-to-human creative transfer will always result in details being lost/assumed, and it's the same with AI rn, but AI's aren't human; they get more powerful each day, and soon enough, their ability (given enough data) to predict your behaviors will be scarily accurate - and once they're able to infer your true intent, ideas, and imagined result, when does credit shift from the AI to the human? Who's really doing the heavy lifting? Suppose i can relate it to digital art: when you fill in an object with a color, or use layering, use a symmetry tool, is it the computer who's enabling your creative output or is it you who's enabling the computer? Either way one doesn't work on their own

*cough*

I know what you mean though. But i can't see how it can be related to ordering humans - humans are autonomous, free-thinking (well at-least some) beings who's decisions are influenced by, well them. An LLM is completely different in this regard since they're not able to think for themselves; it's a complex predication model and nothing more. And without getting too iffy on the human brain stuff (We're also just highly complex prediction machines who evaluate past/present data to influence decisions), you can make the argument an AI can absorb enough of your brains nature using mountains of data to precisely output your idea without losing the original intent in the process. So when you "order" an AI that you've: ensured is familiar with your thought process, understood how to get accurate outputs after learning their mechanics, and retains enough of your idea without just blindly guessing the next sentence/image noise, it's hardly like when you tell an individual what to do, since the control discrepancy is massive in comparison. I mean, how do you know information isn't lost in-between the signals from your brain to the movement of your pen? I think coding is a better example of this since it's literally just telling a machine what to do; the "that's not real coding" debate boils down to outdated skills, since the core concept (making a machine what you want it to do) remains, isn't it the same? Guess this also depends if you can consider programming an art though, to a degree i think it is

What would you say for prodigy's then? Those who have an almost innate (even though it's just their brains predisposed capacity for XYZ task/aspect) ability to translate their concepts onto a piece of paper, effortlessly. This a deconstruct perspective which i hate but it's relevant enough: if it's effort that makes the art human, what does that make the truly gifted; who's to say effort can't come in the form of ones imagination opposed to their skill to translate that into painting/code/music etc - also if it's merely effort that attributes the humanity into art, what do you say for (I'm cringing at the concept but it's true nonetheless) so-called "prompt engineers" who've seriously put time & effort into learning how to manipulate an AI's response? Corny as it may sound it's not an easy task to master LLM prompting

Been thinking about this shit for hours now i can't stop

I'll lyk