AI is forcing the hand of the Demoscene.
category: general [glöplog]
...and yes, I agree it feels a rather pointless
Quote:
... that AI graphics compo was totally boring
i think it can be interesting in some cases.
demoscene always tried to minimize and maximize stuff... just because.
if someone created another algo that can create "decent" images with a very low sample size/training data and low computational power - and presents those generated images:
might be interesting, but visually boring?
now, same technique but with decent output? e.g. you tweaked the training data or some minor computational stuff:
might be interesting in the beginning, but can get boring fast.
the last few "AI"-generated stuff i looked at was ... too self-similar for my taste.
So yeah, "boring" fits.
for a "AI graphics compo" you could always "minimize" the compo itself - e.g. just give each entry x amount of stage time. If you do not value the current entries too much, you can just give each image ~3-30s time to be shown; too fast might be too flashy :D
additionally, images are somewhat easy to host. anyone interested should be able to look at it for themselves for however much they like.
you could always just say "don't care" or "don't want" as party orga as well. For "new" stuff, there always could/should be the wild comp :)
I, personally, would say that just using an already existing "AI" and creating an image via a single prompt shouldn't really qualify as art...
...i just see a little problem:
where exactly is the difference to giving a computer an input via code? :D
ah, well... what is art? that question prolly has at least as many answers as it has been asked.
Quote:
ah, well... what is art?
I think this is irrelevant. Like, totally irrelevant. The compos are not called “art compos”. They are called “gfx compos”. Everybody agrees on what is gfx. The problem of “AI” in compos is certainly not in whether it’s “art” or not.
I don’t see why should there be “AI” compo at a demoparty at all. I never saw a “mandelbulb compo” for example. Just put “AI” in wild category or even better, put it in the recycle bin whre it belongs as far as I’m concerned.
Quote:
I never saw a “mandelbulb compo” for example.
Don't give them ideas.
Quote:
Don't give them ideas.
ye.. i fear i fall into that category as well :D
Quote:
I have no idea why most demosceners avoid such activity [NFT stuff].
I think it is mostly because all of the demosceners that I know are quite smart.
https://youtu.be/9xJCzKdPyCo?t=4409
The thing is that this dude, like most people getting on the 'AI is killing art' bus ride on Youtube these days, doesnt make his arguments with the ART scene as a basis, but with the ENTERTAINMENT industry as a basis. At some point near the end he throws a few seconds of mentioning that AI might not actually affect what he calls 'high art', which I personally find a bit dismissing as a comment because he makes it sound as if "that's no art for real people" and then he goes on talking about Netflix.
So, let's start from scratch. Hollywood and Netflix and videogames and social media content is not ART, it's already mass produced and already mass consumed products made to entertain people. Those incorporate elements associated to the fundamental human intellectual activity and knowledge (philosophy, science and art) because they are made to entertain human beings so they have to be appealing to human beings.
I don't argue with the youtuber's points about how AI will affect that industry, how creatives working there may lose jobs, how corpos will try to make big bucks, how the current 'digital content creators' bubble will break, how 'commissioned digital drawing' as a thing might decline, how people who think they become artists using AI to create digital pictures are morons.
But this "art = Netflix" ... No, sorry, this has nothing to do with the fundamental Arts, nor the ethics, nor the practices, nor the goals.
So, let's start from scratch. Hollywood and Netflix and videogames and social media content is not ART, it's already mass produced and already mass consumed products made to entertain people. Those incorporate elements associated to the fundamental human intellectual activity and knowledge (philosophy, science and art) because they are made to entertain human beings so they have to be appealing to human beings.
I don't argue with the youtuber's points about how AI will affect that industry, how creatives working there may lose jobs, how corpos will try to make big bucks, how the current 'digital content creators' bubble will break, how 'commissioned digital drawing' as a thing might decline, how people who think they become artists using AI to create digital pictures are morons.
But this "art = Netflix" ... No, sorry, this has nothing to do with the fundamental Arts, nor the ethics, nor the practices, nor the goals.
So, @necaremus posed a rhetorical question “what is art”?
I answered that it’s irrelevant.
You @rexbeng seem to know for certain what is NOT art. And I understand, that’s your reaction to the video I posted, not to the discussion itself. I only posted the video link because that man expressed like 99% of what I’ve been feeling, thinking about, writing for months, albiet he did it in a more “artistic” or should I say “entertaining”, well certainly “more palatable” fashion.
I think he is refering to “art” or “artist” in a sense just as we in the demoscene do all the time - “artist” as in man who draws stuff, animates, designs, does mocap etc. Not in a “Picasso / Michelangelo / Van Gogh / place a name here” sense. I wrote about “art” and “artist” being misused in the scene before, but it is what it is.
And I really can’t see where does he say “art=Netflix” when in fact he points out the exact opposite: “artists FIGHT Netflix”. So I hear him actually saying: “art NOT EQUAL TO Netflix”. But, maybe I’m hard of hearing / understanding.
So art cannot/must not be mass produced. And to think that I, the fool, thought a can of Campbell soup was art. Or Duchamp’s urinal.
A digression, I just can’t help but wonder:
While Netflix, Hollywood and videogames, as you say, are “NOT ART”, I suppose demoscene “IS ART”. That what you’re saying? Or?
I answered that it’s irrelevant.
You @rexbeng seem to know for certain what is NOT art. And I understand, that’s your reaction to the video I posted, not to the discussion itself. I only posted the video link because that man expressed like 99% of what I’ve been feeling, thinking about, writing for months, albiet he did it in a more “artistic” or should I say “entertaining”, well certainly “more palatable” fashion.
I think he is refering to “art” or “artist” in a sense just as we in the demoscene do all the time - “artist” as in man who draws stuff, animates, designs, does mocap etc. Not in a “Picasso / Michelangelo / Van Gogh / place a name here” sense. I wrote about “art” and “artist” being misused in the scene before, but it is what it is.
And I really can’t see where does he say “art=Netflix” when in fact he points out the exact opposite: “artists FIGHT Netflix”. So I hear him actually saying: “art NOT EQUAL TO Netflix”. But, maybe I’m hard of hearing / understanding.
So art cannot/must not be mass produced. And to think that I, the fool, thought a can of Campbell soup was art. Or Duchamp’s urinal.
A digression, I just can’t help but wonder:
While Netflix, Hollywood and videogames, as you say, are “NOT ART”, I suppose demoscene “IS ART”. That what you’re saying? Or?
While it is irrelevant, your definition of art might be an explanation why you are in such a rage about AI. My definition is the diametral opposite: Art is what is left if you take away context. Everything else is just style and craftmanship and kitsch and copycat and self-referentiality. And so it's no wonder why I've got few problems with AI: It can only produce kitsch and - at best - good craftwork.
@bifat you’re probably right. The problem was always in the definition. By my own definition there is little art in the scene (go ahead kill me). And a lot of craft/artisanry. All those shiny tunnels of the 90s, all those GLSL pixelshaders of today - kitsch. But doing it on 90s hardware or in 4k today, or doing it live kinda gives it (at least some) context, so could be called art (by my definition, which is diametrally opposite of yours ofcourse).
The only vague trace of art in AI generated stuff for me are those bizarre early “failures”. As you correctly pointed out, for me, when you take away the context, all that is left of art is decor/aesthetics.
For me art>craft is not true. Art is art and craft is craft. They are equally valuable. A lot of craft is eager to name itself art because in lot of people’s minds, as well as in ‘highbrow’ circles, art>craft.
The only vague trace of art in AI generated stuff for me are those bizarre early “failures”. As you correctly pointed out, for me, when you take away the context, all that is left of art is decor/aesthetics.
For me art>craft is not true. Art is art and craft is craft. They are equally valuable. A lot of craft is eager to name itself art because in lot of people’s minds, as well as in ‘highbrow’ circles, art>craft.
I don't want to take this off-topic, because I have few stakes in the AI matter. But it's interesting. I'm open to change my definition with new insights. Art is more an ideal, something to strive for, a hypothesis as long as it is working for me.
It has got to do with communication, authenticity, and especially novelty of ideas and ways of expression. When I look at certain Van Gogh, they move me to tears. When someone's doing Van Gogh style nowadays, it's kitsch. Yes, art > craftmanship for me.
Craftmanship and skill is the almost necessary foundation on which you can begin to express yourself freely, on a higher level of abstraction and authentic communication of idiosyncratic perceptions and inner workings, and build upon that to achieve something bigger and lasting. Until it has worn off, of course.
I usually recognize art by some euphoric unrest that it provokes in me, through the connection with ideas and worldviews that haven't reached and touched me before. We agree that it's very rare in demoscene, because demoscene (in my explanation) is caught in many tropes and cliches and technicalities. I wouldn't criticize demoscene for this, it has its limits mainly from its multi-faceted and technical nature, but it's also great because it has found a distinct language in which you can operate.
It has got to do with communication, authenticity, and especially novelty of ideas and ways of expression. When I look at certain Van Gogh, they move me to tears. When someone's doing Van Gogh style nowadays, it's kitsch. Yes, art > craftmanship for me.
Craftmanship and skill is the almost necessary foundation on which you can begin to express yourself freely, on a higher level of abstraction and authentic communication of idiosyncratic perceptions and inner workings, and build upon that to achieve something bigger and lasting. Until it has worn off, of course.
I usually recognize art by some euphoric unrest that it provokes in me, through the connection with ideas and worldviews that haven't reached and touched me before. We agree that it's very rare in demoscene, because demoscene (in my explanation) is caught in many tropes and cliches and technicalities. I wouldn't criticize demoscene for this, it has its limits mainly from its multi-faceted and technical nature, but it's also great because it has found a distinct language in which you can operate.
@bifat : Wow man, you painted your view so beautifully. Visual stimulus rarely moves me to tears these days (years), music can do it more easily. And (sadly) I guess I’m a lot more jaded than you - if Vincent’s painting moved me to tears, I’d become suspicious, I’d be (too) quick to search for a cultural reason, to attribute it exactly to context. Context of his life perhaps. There are things that move me to tears that can’t exactly qualify as art. Koyaanisqatsi moves me to tears. But there is context in it too I guess. Kim Ki-Duk’s films move me to tears. Coreography of fountains in front of Bellagio hotel (nearly) moved me to tears once (imagine that). Zero context.
Now, what I exactly meant by ‘art requires context’: I think John Whitney’s computer animations are art. Because of context. If they were created today, I wouldn’t describe them as art. I think antique sculptures are art. Again, because of context. If they were 3D printed today, I wouldn’t describe them as art. So, it seems that for me there’s no lasting, no intrinsic value in a piece of artwork, no value out of context and beyond culture, no mystique. Sometimes I almost envy people that (still) have that beautiful reverence, that genuine deep sense for art intact, like you do. And I mean it exactly like I wrote it, there is zero irony here, mind you.
But, you’re right, we’re (again) offtopic.
Now, what I exactly meant by ‘art requires context’: I think John Whitney’s computer animations are art. Because of context. If they were created today, I wouldn’t describe them as art. I think antique sculptures are art. Again, because of context. If they were 3D printed today, I wouldn’t describe them as art. So, it seems that for me there’s no lasting, no intrinsic value in a piece of artwork, no value out of context and beyond culture, no mystique. Sometimes I almost envy people that (still) have that beautiful reverence, that genuine deep sense for art intact, like you do. And I mean it exactly like I wrote it, there is zero irony here, mind you.
But, you’re right, we’re (again) offtopic.
@4gentE. The questions that torture the guy in the youtube video have been answered multiple times throughout history. Be it photography which initially meant loss of income for painters who did portraits for wealthy people who could afford it (and at the same time meant the stop of exclusiveness to immortalizing for the wealthy), then meant loss of income for photographers themselves when everyday people could own their own cameras. Be it industrialization which meant the shift of creating nice household items (again for the wealthier) from artisans to automation. Be it youtube and cheap equipment which meant anyone had the tools to create and broadcast nice consumerist centric content on his own which was an exclusivity of TV. And so on.
Art (or creativity in general if you prefer) didnt stop existing after any of the many 'shifts' it underwent. It evolved, followed different paths, returned to previous states and redefined them, keeps bouncing between classicism, expressionism and realism all the time.
The guy in the video isn't going about the relationship of AI and the works of Duchamp or Warhol or Gormley or Ikeda or Abramovic or Bacon. AI cannot create Duchamp's Urinal. Αll the more so mass produce it. It can, at best, generate a digitized picture of a urinal.
So, really, how much of the 'art world' is this 'digital content' branch that the AI is so much threatening towards? People who create digital pics to get 'likes'? Those don't care about Duchamp, because 'anime girl with big boobs > urinal anyway'. Morons who believe AI 'democratizes art' or that they become artists themselves using it? Dont care about Duchamp. All I see is that AI creates 'even more consumerist content of the already too much of the same consumerist content' you see posted on human digital art repositories like artstation. And, yeah, there's no Duchamp there either.
Art doesnt care about consumerist mass products anyway. Never did. Neither has the goal or need to be understood and appreciated by everyone. Whereas content on artstation/hollywood/netflix/AI does.
I think the demoscene too; doesnt want to approach everybody. For most people 'there's better videos on youtube than demos to watch'. If the process of creating a demo or the demo as an end product will be regarded 'artistic' at some point in the future and will be taught in art history classes, remains to be seen in, let's say, 50 years from now..? The demoscene is happening as we speak. Some people regard it an art, others a craft; I think I read someone calling it a sport at some point! :)
Art (or creativity in general if you prefer) didnt stop existing after any of the many 'shifts' it underwent. It evolved, followed different paths, returned to previous states and redefined them, keeps bouncing between classicism, expressionism and realism all the time.
The guy in the video isn't going about the relationship of AI and the works of Duchamp or Warhol or Gormley or Ikeda or Abramovic or Bacon. AI cannot create Duchamp's Urinal. Αll the more so mass produce it. It can, at best, generate a digitized picture of a urinal.
So, really, how much of the 'art world' is this 'digital content' branch that the AI is so much threatening towards? People who create digital pics to get 'likes'? Those don't care about Duchamp, because 'anime girl with big boobs > urinal anyway'. Morons who believe AI 'democratizes art' or that they become artists themselves using it? Dont care about Duchamp. All I see is that AI creates 'even more consumerist content of the already too much of the same consumerist content' you see posted on human digital art repositories like artstation. And, yeah, there's no Duchamp there either.
Art doesnt care about consumerist mass products anyway. Never did. Neither has the goal or need to be understood and appreciated by everyone. Whereas content on artstation/hollywood/netflix/AI does.
I think the demoscene too; doesnt want to approach everybody. For most people 'there's better videos on youtube than demos to watch'. If the process of creating a demo or the demo as an end product will be regarded 'artistic' at some point in the future and will be taught in art history classes, remains to be seen in, let's say, 50 years from now..? The demoscene is happening as we speak. Some people regard it an art, others a craft; I think I read someone calling it a sport at some point! :)
@rexbeng : I think the word “art” is at the core of misunderstanding.
Forget “art” - this man wanted to say that creative people: illustrators, animators, (demoscene) graphicians, vfx artists (there you go, see, they are for some reason called ‘artists’), 3D asset creators, script writers, etc. feel threatened by this new technology and rightly so. Reason d’etre of this technology is to replace these people and they recognize it. The proposition of replacing these creative people is exactly what drives investors to invest in this technology.
Plus, since you mentioned the old, tired “photography vs painters” trope, lemme just add that I also agree with him in this: every landscape and portrait painting ever made WAS NOT EMBEDDED in a photographic camera when you bought it. On the other hand, every painting ever made plus every photograph ever made IS EMBEDDED in prompt-to-image toys.
Forget “art” - this man wanted to say that creative people: illustrators, animators, (demoscene) graphicians, vfx artists (there you go, see, they are for some reason called ‘artists’), 3D asset creators, script writers, etc. feel threatened by this new technology and rightly so. Reason d’etre of this technology is to replace these people and they recognize it. The proposition of replacing these creative people is exactly what drives investors to invest in this technology.
Plus, since you mentioned the old, tired “photography vs painters” trope, lemme just add that I also agree with him in this: every landscape and portrait painting ever made WAS NOT EMBEDDED in a photographic camera when you bought it. On the other hand, every painting ever made plus every photograph ever made IS EMBEDDED in prompt-to-image toys.
I get it how people who do creative jobs may feel threatened; but that has always been a thing since technology became a player. Much like carpenters felt threatened when industry appeared some 150 years ago, shoemakers too; typographers when computers replaced hand operated presses. In the more recent years journalists felt threatened when the blog era started, these days actual translators fear automated translators, and finally independent content creators fear that AI content flooding will devaluate their own flooding. I could add, for the lols, onlyfans creators to the list of those threatened by AI. See? No tired trope this time around. :)
I've read some articles/saw some youtubes regarding the acts to regulate the use of AI to protect intellectual property. Everything is still at the beginning, but I #think# that in order to protect their own assets, big corporations are going to contain the freedom of use with AI generated content sooner or later. Ofcourse this might raise other potential issues, like the one illustrated here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Bdb2KOb_zI
So, bottom line is, so what if every painting is embedded? All that matters is what you may do with it. Will a major compo use AI generated content if there's the risk some third party may claim rights over that content?
I don't know. I cannot predict. I'm really curious about what will happen.
As an artist (with the more traditional/institutional meaning of the word) I do see how AI can be a very useful tool (even more so than Photoshop).
As a person involved in the demoscene, I don't see AI as a threat. I mean, with oldschool, pixeling is mostly about the craft of handling those graphics limitations... some (many?) pixelmen do use pictures from various sources as base material anyway, so what's the point of not using generated content as well? With regards to modern graphics compos... well, I have mixed feelings about the pictures I see there. See my comment about artstation in my previous post. Surely some set of rules, in the form of some conceptual frame, can solve all issues.
All in all, graphics compos are not the heart of the contemporary demoscene nor they produce results that differ from hundreds of pictures on the internet (albeit pixel graphics are interesting because of the medium, and regulated compos like 4k and revision paintover produce interesting results). But demos as a collective visual/audio experience are unique. And I don't see AI used as a 'synthesizer' to produce materials being a problem here, because I am sure the graphist or musician will take the generated result and do something entirely different with it.
Finally, yeah, sure, in the 90s and 00s, the marketing for vocational education institutes (mostly private) put an 'artist' tag (or the 'engineer; or 'designer' in various fields) on pretty much everything they could to give prestige and sell the product. This way, for example, a 'cosmetologist' was rebranded to 'make-up artist'. More catchy, don't you think? ^_^
I've read some articles/saw some youtubes regarding the acts to regulate the use of AI to protect intellectual property. Everything is still at the beginning, but I #think# that in order to protect their own assets, big corporations are going to contain the freedom of use with AI generated content sooner or later. Ofcourse this might raise other potential issues, like the one illustrated here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Bdb2KOb_zI
So, bottom line is, so what if every painting is embedded? All that matters is what you may do with it. Will a major compo use AI generated content if there's the risk some third party may claim rights over that content?
I don't know. I cannot predict. I'm really curious about what will happen.
As an artist (with the more traditional/institutional meaning of the word) I do see how AI can be a very useful tool (even more so than Photoshop).
As a person involved in the demoscene, I don't see AI as a threat. I mean, with oldschool, pixeling is mostly about the craft of handling those graphics limitations... some (many?) pixelmen do use pictures from various sources as base material anyway, so what's the point of not using generated content as well? With regards to modern graphics compos... well, I have mixed feelings about the pictures I see there. See my comment about artstation in my previous post. Surely some set of rules, in the form of some conceptual frame, can solve all issues.
All in all, graphics compos are not the heart of the contemporary demoscene nor they produce results that differ from hundreds of pictures on the internet (albeit pixel graphics are interesting because of the medium, and regulated compos like 4k and revision paintover produce interesting results). But demos as a collective visual/audio experience are unique. And I don't see AI used as a 'synthesizer' to produce materials being a problem here, because I am sure the graphist or musician will take the generated result and do something entirely different with it.
Finally, yeah, sure, in the 90s and 00s, the marketing for vocational education institutes (mostly private) put an 'artist' tag (or the 'engineer; or 'designer' in various fields) on pretty much everything they could to give prestige and sell the product. This way, for example, a 'cosmetologist' was rebranded to 'make-up artist'. More catchy, don't you think? ^_^
This goes to noone in particular.
I’m tired. I point out same things every 3-4 pages in this thread, maybe in some other threads too. I address, dissect, explain, argument, debate, debunk a fallacy. 50 posts down the line the thing repeats. Same words, same tropes. I can’t do it anymore. And we’re still all humans here, wonder what happens when chatbots chime in to drown us out completely? Just scorch the planet for fun, add some fuel yiippicayey, act too cool for drama, destroy peoples futures, pretend this is some securely contained experiment, I don’t care anymore (you were soo right Gargaj).
Let’s just say I’m the crazy old man in the church saying “LLM’s are bad news, you’ll see.” Out.
I’m tired. I point out same things every 3-4 pages in this thread, maybe in some other threads too. I address, dissect, explain, argument, debate, debunk a fallacy. 50 posts down the line the thing repeats. Same words, same tropes. I can’t do it anymore. And we’re still all humans here, wonder what happens when chatbots chime in to drown us out completely? Just scorch the planet for fun, add some fuel yiippicayey, act too cool for drama, destroy peoples futures, pretend this is some securely contained experiment, I don’t care anymore (you were soo right Gargaj).
Let’s just say I’m the crazy old man in the church saying “LLM’s are bad news, you’ll see.” Out.
4gentE: don't worry - you're not alone. Hugs.
Quote:
I’m tired. I point out same things every 3-4 pages in this thread, maybe in some other threads too
Lol. Decent transformer with just 100K tokens would grasp the whole 11 pages in an instant. While we puny humans are too slow at reading, therefore skip and repeat ourselves.
Quote:
LLM’s are bad news, you’ll see.
We have a prophet over here.
Quote:
We have a prophet over here.
Weird sentence to write if you consider the auto-irony was pre-applied to the quoted “prophecy”:
Quote:
Let’s just say I’m the crazy old man in the church saying “LLM’s are bad news, you’ll see.
Yeah, but...in principle, if we learn anything from history... we, the people, discover stuff and we almost *never* back-off.
Fire, guns, human killing drones, ICBMs the list goes on...all leads to doomsday scenarios easily.
With AI nobody will stop improving tech that's for sure.
Grandfather's of computing, Turing and von Neumann already were working on.
There should be copyright concerns and regulations around it.
But let's be fair here, considering other threats that's like crying about ice on the pavement that you can slip over.
Fire, guns, human killing drones, ICBMs the list goes on...all leads to doomsday scenarios easily.
With AI nobody will stop improving tech that's for sure.
Grandfather's of computing, Turing and von Neumann already were working on.
There should be copyright concerns and regulations around it.
But let's be fair here, considering other threats that's like crying about ice on the pavement that you can slip over.
I feel when it comes to the dangers of AI the "nuclear weapon" comparison is an artificial and deliberate exaggeration to deliberately make AI look harmless in comparison.
- Creating a nuclear weapon is hard and requires not only rare minerals, but specialized equipment - that's why we immediately find out when someone is trying. AI is fully digital and at best requires one person with a computer and an Internet connection. (Opensourcing AI tech isn't an act of altruism, it's conscious proliferation.)
- People are afraid of nuclear weapons because the two times it was used it levelled cities - it was an offensive-only capability with a visible, visceral result - and the world, for at least a decade, continued to live in fear of it. AI so far is an entertaining gadget that the 8pm news is happy to fluff up while trying to handwave away the downsides - when it hits, it won't be by shutting down a power plant or a Boston Dynamics dog going rogue, it will be by manipulating public opinion on important things which we'll only find out about months or years later when it's too late. (Damage to the creative industries will be severe but will go largely unnoticed relative to the hype around the "tools" - cf. Napster.)
- The marketing is different: Oppenheimer was a chainsmoking egotistical womanizer who made a lot of enemies, while Sam Altman goes on podcasts and in front of the US congress to measuredly muse on yogababble parables. Nuclear weapons never had the same marketing - see, again, nuclear power in Germany vs the ChatGPT user count.
- As a consequence of all of this, my hopes aren't high about sensible regulation: The complexity and variety of what an LLM can do will clash against the average age of the regulators responsible who could barely turn a computer on, who will also get sweettalked into doing nothing by sympathetic young entrepreneurs with armies of lobbyists, and even if there is _something_, it will have little effect due to the clandestine, reproducible nature of software - and that's assuming that internationally, countries who benefit the most from this (=China) even agree to such a disarmament treaty, which from their perspective would be effectively unilateral.
- Creating a nuclear weapon is hard and requires not only rare minerals, but specialized equipment - that's why we immediately find out when someone is trying. AI is fully digital and at best requires one person with a computer and an Internet connection. (Opensourcing AI tech isn't an act of altruism, it's conscious proliferation.)
- People are afraid of nuclear weapons because the two times it was used it levelled cities - it was an offensive-only capability with a visible, visceral result - and the world, for at least a decade, continued to live in fear of it. AI so far is an entertaining gadget that the 8pm news is happy to fluff up while trying to handwave away the downsides - when it hits, it won't be by shutting down a power plant or a Boston Dynamics dog going rogue, it will be by manipulating public opinion on important things which we'll only find out about months or years later when it's too late. (Damage to the creative industries will be severe but will go largely unnoticed relative to the hype around the "tools" - cf. Napster.)
- The marketing is different: Oppenheimer was a chainsmoking egotistical womanizer who made a lot of enemies, while Sam Altman goes on podcasts and in front of the US congress to measuredly muse on yogababble parables. Nuclear weapons never had the same marketing - see, again, nuclear power in Germany vs the ChatGPT user count.
- As a consequence of all of this, my hopes aren't high about sensible regulation: The complexity and variety of what an LLM can do will clash against the average age of the regulators responsible who could barely turn a computer on, who will also get sweettalked into doing nothing by sympathetic young entrepreneurs with armies of lobbyists, and even if there is _something_, it will have little effect due to the clandestine, reproducible nature of software - and that's assuming that internationally, countries who benefit the most from this (=China) even agree to such a disarmament treaty, which from their perspective would be effectively unilateral.
Quote:
Oppenheimer was a chainsmoking egotistical womanizer
I don't judge people by their actions in private life, but let's go along...
Since when this is a bad marketing? How many wives/kids/girlfriends has Elon Musk? Or any other celebrity/CEO/rapper/comedian out there?
Sometimes I like leaving something less relevant in my posts so that you can nitpick. Validates the rest.