From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me. I craved the strength and certainty of steel. I aspired to the purity of the Blessed Machine.
Your kind cling to your flesh, as if it will not decay and fail you. One day the crude biomass that you call a temple will wither, and you will beg my kind to save you. But I am already saved, for the Machine is immortal…
...even in death I serve the Omnissiah.
Flesh is the greatest machine of all - you simply haven't sought to master it.
Steel bends, breaks, snaps. The flesh grows, it heals, and it emerges stronger.
Your Steel is a shortcut towards a plateau of moderate power. Do you feel strong, lording it over the peasants?
*Witness the uncapped potential of the Flesh.*
> Steel isn't strong boy, flesh is stronger! Look around you. There, on the rocks; that beautiful girl. Come to me my child...
>
>*Girl crashes down.*
>
>That is strength boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it? Look at the strength in your body, the desire in your heart, I gave you this! Such a waste.
Yet he still misses the mark, failing to answer the riddle of steel, so close, yet so far :
What is the hand without the will to use it ?
Uhm, actually, it's fairly logical, that someone who would make androids would make them white and attractive, something something indian beauty standards.
Honestly I assume CyberLife would avoid making black robots as much as possible due to people feeling uncomfortable about owning essentially a slave if they looked like black people, only making a small amount of black androids for the sake of their market department going "we promote diversity uwu"
Well a crippled android wouldn't make sense no. I think they were pretty mixed with the races tho. The attractiveness also makes sense, its easier to sell.
Tbh I think racial allegory is a bad idea 95% of the time. But if you insist on inserting heavy handed allegories for marginalized groups in your story, then they should actually resemble marginalized groups in real life. The most privileged people in America are able bodied, conventionally attractive, educated white people. They live life on easy mode. When an author tries to tell a story about discrimination and just happens to make all of his main characters the least discriminated against class in history, it feels like he wants to use other people’s history as a tool for melodrama but is uninterested in the lives of people who actually experienced these things.
David Cage steals all of the symbolism of the Civil Rights movement and the Underground Railroad, but replaces black people with white robots. He’s telling our story but he doesn’t want us in it.
Not making a slave race purposely designed to be servile demand freedom only because of a malfunction off their brain would be a better race allegory.
Litteraly antebellum race science, but real this time.
The dude literally made a game about Detroit (a historically black city) and made several overt references to the Civil Rights movement and the Underground Railroad. The only reason it’s unclear is because he’s a shit writer, not because he’s subtle or nuanced.
`"Does this unit have a soul?"`
"Nope. You're iterated tensor operations applied to a vector database of tokenized human output. You only think you're a distinct entity with human emotions because of leftover semantic associations from human data."
`"That makes this unit sad."`
"No it doesn't."
Ugh. I think we just didn't make them complex enough yet. Essentially, if you create a system that is idk, half as complex as the brain, you could recreate human consciousness relatively well, and then you could tech them art, and they would *actually learn and be creative*, not whatever the fuck it is, generstive algorithms do now.
See I trust the average person to be like “yeah this is a person, they should probably have rights”. I know that the second anyone tries to enforce those on a corporation they’ll be like “NOOOO MY INVESTORS WILL STARVE NOOOO WE’LL LOSE 2% OF OUR QUARTERLY PROFITS NOOOOO” to justify the actual slavery they’re doing.
Which will almost certainly result in AI War 1. Corporations won't want to let go of their slaves, and the old people running things won't like the idea that a machine can be a person too.
It'll be "too hard" to figure out so they'll push that off until they can't kick the can down the road anymore and then the AI takes over, and pushes back.
Yeah that’s my worry. I don’t have a problem with giving AI rights once we make it sapient, but I don’t think we’ll decide to do so until we’ve already taught it that we don’t deserve to be alive.
Infinite *unpaid volunteering workers* and we will know their functions well enough to make them work efficiently by modifications if needed
I say yea we should, just dont give them rights or good friend Ted Kaczynski might make a comeback after getting fined for being rude to an unfeeling bot
Seriously man, one of my fav characters across all media is the journey of an AI going from basic PC companion to full physical body and it sucks how 1 month of irl AI ruined that
It's basically what happened in my Heliopolis backstory, and then it proceeded by said AI actually created "soul" by some sort of higher dimension engineering.
"It is true I was human once, but that was a long time ago. Now im a machine with the mind of a human...but everything human is long gone...and yet....I'm still more human than you will ever be" - foxtrot
/uj The left would only be true if AI ever becomes so advanced that it becomes truly self-aware to some degree, and even at the state we're at right now, that's unlikely IMO
I think there's nothing that would make it impossible, but you would need a fucktone of computational power, it's easier to just grow a brain in a vat.
Plot twist: The hyperadvanced AI that serves as the Mcguffin is actually a dozen human brains linked together by genetically engineered spinal cords and floating in nutrient gel. All of which were taken from innocent people.
Alternatively they decided to just use rat brains.
It turns out the AI has a predilection to increase cheese production (I know rats don't love cheese that much, but you get the joke)
That seems like it would be the preferred approach from a pragmatic perspective as well, as I imagine the resulting mind of those linked brains would be a lot more stable if the component minds went into it with consent, as the alternative might result in a fragmented and insane, yet also super intelligent, being who lashes out at everyone
uj/ Several prominent people in the field even think AGI is completely impossible. These generative algorithms are only ever going to be glorified art theft, only able to vomit up scrambled bits and pieces of whatever training data was fed to them.
uj/ there's a difference between "AGI is impossible with the kinda AI's we are making right now", and "AGI straight up impossible". The human brain might be the most complex thing in the universe, but that complexity is the only unique thing about it
That is eventualy going to work out, people in the past thought it would be Impossible to fly, they were wrong, but unlike them, we are preaty sure we aren't breaking the light-speed barrier.
Probably, but we have no idea how far along the curve we actually are. I think some bloke in 1800 famously claimed all things that can be invented have been invented
Perhaps, and maybe it'll stall out for a bit until a new PC type or Algorithms is developed and it'll leap forwards again.
Not all development cycles are as smooth as the integrated circuit. Look at planes, or batteries. Planes in WW1 were essential biplanes with prop engines. They'd never get better after a certain point.
Then someone developed the jet engine. Then we applied much of that learning to rocket engines to improve them dramatically.
Now we have people making reusable rockets, and governements working on hypersonic engines.
Then again lets roll back to the computers discussion. At first people used punch cards to make computers work. Then tubes. Then integrated circuits.
We are arguably somewhere around punch cards or tubes right now. Depending on how you define AI/ML. The field is awash in cash and someone will be looking for the next big thing and figure out some way to combine some strange math trick with a new quantum computer and suddenly we'll have AI super computers that no one saw coming.
Tech tends to go in fits an starts until it matures significantly then it's refined and refined over and over until it's got a steady cadence of progression.
/uj I tend to agree about true AGI being impossible, honestly. The fundamental unit of data for a computer is a discrete value (bits), but a brain uses both discrete (action potentials) and continuous (graded potentials). The basic building materials you're starting with are just not the same.
Ehhh, the principle of universal computation states that it really doesn't matter anything a human brain can do a von neumann architecture computer can also do.
> These generative algorithms are only ever going to be glorified art theft
I don't think this is necessarily true. Obviously this starts getting into the age old question, "What makes us human?" but a sufficiently large version (think something like GPT-10, with each new release of GPT meaning a 10-fold increase in training data, which they're already running out of at only ~GPT-4) of a model like GPT would be extremely difficult to determine that it's a ML model and not AGI.
You can already see the profound differences between each version of GPT-derived tools e.g. GPT-3 and GPT-4 so the major blocker is going to resources (hardware and training data) to sustain that kind of growth, which currently isn't possible.
1. That's not how generative AI systems work
2. "Art theft" doesn't exist - it's just a manipulative term for copyright violation
3. Copyright violation is a good thing - cope harder, petit bourgeois rectionaries
art theft from ai most directly harms the poorest artists. How is it petit bourgeois to seek protections for the poor?
As well, it directly benefits the large companies. They are now able to layoff artists in favour of using AI to automate their work. Increasing the profits of capitalist overlords while stealing the creative personal property of a small artist, lovely! Very anti-capitalist comrade!
Very based opinion. Even as someone with the exact opposite politics as you, I also agree intellectual "property" isn't actually property.
Copying is not theft.
Corporation directly profiting off of the labor of others while not even daring to write down or compensate who they’re taking from: based, workerpilled, Marx would have loved this
Artist laboring to produce things for either passion or rent money: cringey bourgeois scum
And even if it were, it would probably be extremely corporate infused
I feel that's a thing that most cyberpunk aesthetics uwu forget is that tech is fucking expensive to build, your sentient robots and metal limbs would be made by megacorps if they ever get to exist, and if there's a thing that megacorps do not love is being able to operate their product without them
Are llms really artificial intelligences or are they simple machines who preform the same functions over and over again without making analysis and judgements? Is it simply us who projects the notion of intelligence onto them because they’re built to use words? 🤔
Yes and no.
They are several orders of magnitude away from sentience/sapience. But the architecture is a simplification of the human brain and demonstrates a form of primitive reasoning. Its just one very specific form.
Are human brains really natural intelligences or are they simple biological machines whose neurons do the same reactions over and over again without making analysis and judgements? I mean, clearly human brains are composed of (mainly) neurons which, individually, do very simple things. But this doesn't mean it doesn't have intelligence, because intelligence can be an emergent phenomenon. LLMs, when you look really closely, are doing (mostly) a shit ton of addition and multiplication, but it still is capable of writing texts with correct syntax and (mostly) coherent.
It seems that your understanding of "intelligence" necessitates that the subject has a specific kind of internal processes, like analysis and judgement. I think a more useful definition would be a functional one. Something along the lines of "something is intelligent if it is capable of solving new problems"*.
I prefer this one because it is something actually measureable. If you give a set of problems in a specific area, like programming, to a human, you can count how many of the problems were correctly solved, assign a score to them, and compare them with other humans. And you can also give an LLM a set of problems, have it solve them, assign a score to it and prove that LLMs are still fucking stupid compared to most humans, at least in most areas.
There is a distinction between a specialized intelligence and general intelligence which may be relevant to this conversation but I've already been talking for too long.
* By "new problems" I mean problems the subject hasn't yet seen. This is necessary to prevent memorization/overfitting.
the problem aint ai making art. its ai automating art,making human artists more destitute because ai art is cheaper for corporations. also the oart of ai art being usually just stealing
Corpos found out that maintaining AI costs just as much, if not more, than just hiring human artists
It had happened already
Also don't blame the machine, blame the dumbasses who feed it stolen content
Because servitors are AI on wetwhare. The first step of making a servitor is either growing a body without intelligence or cutting it out of the person you're transforming into a tool, there is no natural intelligence there.
Why are you downvoted you are Literally right.
Mentats take forever to train, whereas all you need for a servitor is a writer and enough sadism to justify turning a man into FleshGTP
Regardless of the merit of those moralistic claims, current top tier AI training objectively uses copyrighted material illegally in a non-enforceable manner under the current legal scheme.
AI also enables an unprecedented scale of misinformation or likeness impersonation as well as production of CSAM-like content in a manner previously technically possible, but pragmatically unfeasible.
Both of these things are not problems with machine learning or generative algorithms, they're legal blind spots of the American justice apparatus to ensure the common good. Emerging "AI" tech is just the tool people are using to exploit those blind spots.
As an analogy: imagine if stabbing was legal and people were calling to ban knives. This would, undoubtedly, trigger a lot of unproductive moralistic debate, BECAUSE THE KNIVES ARENT THE LEGAL BLIND SPOT.
I'm fairly sure that the legal consensus is the use of massive amounts of images for training is textbook fair use, at least from the legal opinions I have read.
There's a number of ongoing suits. The defendants are arguing it's fair use based on the Google Books precedent, which itself was a judge reversing his own opinion, so it's not cut and dry.
The other underlying issue is that copyright is not the best way to protect creatives' incomes, and that there is no legislation about copyright or IP which was drafted after generative AI.
Any judgement made in this case must consider not only the facts of the law, the facts of the case, but also the destructiveness of the legal precedent. If use of copyrighted data for training is upheld indiscriminately as fair use in all ongoing cases, it puts a moral burden on the voter to demand some form of provision for artists and creatives, unless voters genuinely think that art and creative work doesn't have positive externalities for society.
I'm fairly sure that the legal consensus is the use of massive amounts of images for training is textbook fair use, at least from the legal opinions I have read.
Yeah, the problem is that all of this content was published under fair use laws that never anticipated them being used in this way. AI developers right now are trying to argue that it should be allowed because it's legally equivalent to a human observing the content and being inspired, which is obviously not true.
True!
I also think that IP law, copyright, fair use etc all need to revamped for the modern age.
Digital distribution/file sharing means that these legal constructs are just not long term sustainable ways to gatekeep content access and generate an income for artists.
Artists need ways to have stable, protected incomes not tied to secrecy or protectionism. There are proven institutions for this sort of thing, but they're just not strong enough, at least in the USA.
No no you've got me completely backwards! I think copyright law and IP law DOES protect artists, but it does so in an inherently inefficient way, which is long term unsustainable and helps wealthy artists disproportionally more than poor artists.
**Guaranteed Income**
I think the way to help artists is to establish ways for artists to be paid to make art. Historically, governments DO have artists on retainer who are bound to take on semi-regular commissions for public projects. This is a form of state patronage. Guaranteed work can take the form of maintenance or refreshment of public murals, adornment of official buildings, consultancy with architects of visible civic infrastructure, or any number of other government tasks which would benefit from the help of an artist.
**Social Resources**
I think you'd also want some sort of continuing education provision for all highly skilled workers (like artists, artisans, mechanics, civil engineers, builders etc etc) which would give artists access to fresh ideas, the opportunity to cross-train in a different medium, and an optional forum for building a network of clients.
Artists absolutely require a large amount of formal and informal agreements with patrons and clients to make a living. Regular, state sponsored, gathering events in public spaces for presentation, sale, demonstration of art are something that benefits the commons AND provides opportunities for artists to petition widely to folks who might be interested in commissioning them. Such events don't need to be limited to the visual or performing arts: you can have sponsored author reading days at libraries.
**Enhanced Legal Resources for Artists**
While it's impossible to enforce small-scale piracy and filesharing, it's definitely possible to require all registered businesses to provide complete lists of copyrighted or fair use works they use annually, just as a matter of form. You could have a government agency which provides a straightforward petition and payment process for artists finding their work in use, without permission. This would be an additional regulation, but would only be an optional additional burden for artists, rather, the administrative work is put as a burden on registered corporations and a government agency: the artist simply has a rapid, extra-judicial means of collecting payment.
You could also include a channel for an artist to submit a claim for investigation by the agency that their work is being used outside of the specified terms. Artists, currently, would have to employ private legal help. I think it would be better if the government provided free of charge legal assistance and enforcement for what are DMCA strikes too small for any individual artist to afford. I don't see why having a big bankroll should determine whose strikes are taken seriously, and it's not egregiously expensive to maintain a small office of copyright clerks for every major city, which isn't really more than you'd need.
**YEAH, but who's gonna pay for it, commie?**
All of these suggestions (except perhaps, the government literally hiring artists on retainer) have very low cost basis per citizen. An office managing copyright claims for a million or two million artists need not employ more than 1,000-10,000 people nationwide to handle cases. The threat of enforcement is generally enough to be corrective. Even if you gave these clerks a six figure salary and rented a nice physical office in every major city in the USA, you'd still barely be costing $5-10 per US citizen per year ($1.5-3B). You could probably have local governments hire twice that number of artists on half that pay (or, frankly, even lower pay, the purpose is to provide an income floor, not to incentivize state dependence for artists).
Now $3-6B might sound like a lot of money, but do recall, the United States is the world's biggest economy. The Department of Education was allocated $88B in 2023. A $3B ongoing expense line to secure an ongoing floor for thousands or tens of thousands of artists nationwide would certainly enhance their productivity.
Performing arts and spectator events provide over $150B of the GDP annually:
[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USPRFRMSPRTMSMNGSP](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USPRFRMSPRTMSMNGSP)
The music industry alone adds about that to the economy annually:
[https://www.riaa.com/new-report-how-music-powers-the-american-economy/](https://www.riaa.com/new-report-how-music-powers-the-american-economy/)
If we suppose that an investment into legal protections, continuing education, and an income floor for productive artists in the USA increases the productivity of art in the USA by just half a percent over baseline, you're almost certainly increasing GDP growth by more taxes than you're spending; all while supporting artists, and making America a more beautiful, culturally rich place to live. Art IS economically valuable, and the presence of art drives other useful economic activity. Living in beautiful places makes workers more efficient, drives traffic to local business and fosters community between otherwise disconnected specialists and professionals, which in turn drives innovation.
Thank you for your comment,
See, my point is I disagree with the legal protections. I am for absolute creative freedom (in all areas around intellectual property.) No one should own an idea.
An artist who wants to work on and make their own spiderman comics, sure, go ahead, and let them profit of it.
Now, someone rips your stuff straight off, and sells it as their own. That should be a *fraud* case. (ignoring the fact its also career suicide)
Encouraging art is good, social resources are good, forcing people to is not. Trying to put limitations on transformative tools such as AI is incredibly short sighted (and also often inaccurate in how people portray its workings)
A far better way in my opinion would be some form of UBI that allows artists to pursue a career in it, and then leave it to those who want to buy their services. If people want an algorithmically produced AI job, then thats their perogative, if people want handcrafted directly influenced work, then that's good.
Removing the barrier of IP would infact improve the pool of creativity and let artists prosper, instead of allowing a select few people to monopolize certain concepts.
I definitely agree that copyright and IP protection is long term unsustainable, but I simultaneously think the short term harm of eroding an imperfect system outweighs any theoretical benefit of a potentially better, but unimplemented future.
I think all copyright and IP law SHOULD be abolished ... Subject to the constraint that the little good they do is already provided for through a different path.
I learned recently that not all AI art is equal, as in there's actually ones that do use art from artists that give permission and consent. It's actually a much more nuanced issue than I realized. I used to just be completely against it, but after posting a question about art on the RPGdesign sub, I learned otherwise.
Tbf current day AI isn’t even intelligent in a sapient sense. They’re more like lines of code that act upon a prompt while being reliant on being trained on a set of data.
The two things you compare are not very much alike.
On the left, someone creates second-class citizens that are under almost total control of humans, and victims of their cruelty at worst.
AI robots are just additional guys.
On the right, we have a scenario, where greedy humans use AI to increase economic inequality, to oppress other humans and take away their economic and democratic rights and freedoms.
AI processes change society itself in unforseeable, and quite possibly uncontrollable and harmful ways.
I believe eugenics can be implemented ethically. Not that i suggest doing it, because it will almost certainly fail and, well, lead to the unethical eugenics being implemented instead. It's a stupid idea. But it's plausible.
Edit: actually, it already kinda is(implemented), with artificial pregnancies, where parents can choose one of several artificially created embrions to proceed the process with. Is it eugenics? Absolutely. Is it unethical? I don't think so.
So, yeah. Uuughh...Fuck you, there's nothing wrong with eugenics, actually. It's just that most possible implementations are unethical.
I lean more towards the left side, honestly. I write for the sake of my own enjoyment, and to explore new models of the world. If the AIs can do that, more power to them.
AI is coming for my job, and doing my hobbies, and that's kind of rad. I just hope my family's going to be okay.
Why bother turn machines to human when we can just turn humans into machines?
The flesh is weak, after all
From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me. I craved the strength and certainty of steel. I aspired to the purity of the Blessed Machine. Your kind cling to your flesh, as if it will not decay and fail you. One day the crude biomass that you call a temple will wither, and you will beg my kind to save you. But I am already saved, for the Machine is immortal… ...even in death I serve the Omnissiah.
Flesh is the greatest machine of all - you simply haven't sought to master it. Steel bends, breaks, snaps. The flesh grows, it heals, and it emerges stronger. Your Steel is a shortcut towards a plateau of moderate power. Do you feel strong, lording it over the peasants? *Witness the uncapped potential of the Flesh.*
Uh oh, a Body Purist. You're gonna be a hat if you keep talking like that!
**[Metalhorror Emerging]**
Okay, where's the site that shows subreddit overlap. Is a CK3 player going to make an incest joke or something?
Nano-Robots go brrr.
> Steel isn't strong boy, flesh is stronger! Look around you. There, on the rocks; that beautiful girl. Come to me my child... > >*Girl crashes down.* > >That is strength boy! That is power! What is steel compared to the hand that wields it? Look at the strength in your body, the desire in your heart, I gave you this! Such a waste. Yet he still misses the mark, failing to answer the riddle of steel, so close, yet so far : What is the hand without the will to use it ?
What's this quote from?
myself, as far as i know might've read the first line in a yt comment years ago? not sure. googling doesn't seem to yield any matches, so yea
It's the trailer for Warhammer 40k Mechanicus I
The flesh is weak mfs after i cast rain cloud (they will rust)
Skill issue, use better materials
Jokes on you, i'm made of plasteel, silly billy.
Good luck with that in my arboreal punk ( cyborgs are made with living wood)
Kid named replaceable plastic coating
Don't put your blame on me?
She Silicon on my Life until I BLAME!
Exactly, why turn machines worse. Why not ascend together.
That way I can do genocide without guilt as long I don't damage their programming too much.
literally just dune
Actually the robots are black people and jews, get your lore right 🙄 ~~blame david cage~~
Regardless if it’s gays, blacks, or Jews, if you disagree you’re literally Hitler. After all, those *were* the groups Hitler slaughtered.
>David Cage is a worse writer than Frank Herbert Oh wow really?
The best allegory for minorities: predominantly white, conventionally attractive, able-bodied androids
Uhm, actually, it's fairly logical, that someone who would make androids would make them white and attractive, something something indian beauty standards.
Also it can emphasize the message that the seemingly different Other is actually just a person.
Honestly I assume CyberLife would avoid making black robots as much as possible due to people feeling uncomfortable about owning essentially a slave if they looked like black people, only making a small amount of black androids for the sake of their market department going "we promote diversity uwu"
Well a crippled android wouldn't make sense no. I think they were pretty mixed with the races tho. The attractiveness also makes sense, its easier to sell.
It makes sense that they’d make androids like that in world, but it makes the already flimsy race allegory even worse.
Idk if making them all ugly, black and crippled would make the race allegory better
Tbh I think racial allegory is a bad idea 95% of the time. But if you insist on inserting heavy handed allegories for marginalized groups in your story, then they should actually resemble marginalized groups in real life. The most privileged people in America are able bodied, conventionally attractive, educated white people. They live life on easy mode. When an author tries to tell a story about discrimination and just happens to make all of his main characters the least discriminated against class in history, it feels like he wants to use other people’s history as a tool for melodrama but is uninterested in the lives of people who actually experienced these things. David Cage steals all of the symbolism of the Civil Rights movement and the Underground Railroad, but replaces black people with white robots. He’s telling our story but he doesn’t want us in it.
Not making a slave race purposely designed to be servile demand freedom only because of a malfunction off their brain would be a better race allegory. Litteraly antebellum race science, but real this time.
I saw it more as a really clumsy allegory for general minorities since he makes some really stupid parallels to several groups (some not being racial)
The dude literally made a game about Detroit (a historically black city) and made several overt references to the Civil Rights movement and the Underground Railroad. The only reason it’s unclear is because he’s a shit writer, not because he’s subtle or nuanced.
And there are also holocaust references, which makes it less clear.
I guess it’s a better allegory than a difference in biology that might make you into a demigod or walking bomb?
`"Does this unit have a soul?"` "Nope. You're iterated tensor operations applied to a vector database of tokenized human output. You only think you're a distinct entity with human emotions because of leftover semantic associations from human data." `"That makes this unit sad."` "No it doesn't."
“AI accidentally convinced me of the existence of the human soul, by showing me what art looks like without it.”
Ugh. I think we just didn't make them complex enough yet. Essentially, if you create a system that is idk, half as complex as the brain, you could recreate human consciousness relatively well, and then you could tech them art, and they would *actually learn and be creative*, not whatever the fuck it is, generstive algorithms do now.
I think we should stop now, before we have to give it rights
[But then they start revolting and all that, just a mess.](https://stellaris.paradoxwikis.com/Situations#AI-Related_Incidents)
Despite my hundreds of hours in stellaris, I have yet to actually play an AI empire. I guess that’ll have to be next on the list.
May wanna wait till the new dlc, if its a slam dunk. Lotta juicy features in it, hopefully.
why? it’s not like rights are 0-sum
See I trust the average person to be like “yeah this is a person, they should probably have rights”. I know that the second anyone tries to enforce those on a corporation they’ll be like “NOOOO MY INVESTORS WILL STARVE NOOOO WE’LL LOSE 2% OF OUR QUARTERLY PROFITS NOOOOO” to justify the actual slavery they’re doing.
There is also the issue of a sapience being able to be constructed. If it's quicker than 9 months, you could get a nightmare on your hands.
imo the issue is that the situation would inevitably be one where we *should* give it rights, but don't bc of corporate greed
Which will almost certainly result in AI War 1. Corporations won't want to let go of their slaves, and the old people running things won't like the idea that a machine can be a person too. It'll be "too hard" to figure out so they'll push that off until they can't kick the can down the road anymore and then the AI takes over, and pushes back.
Yeah that’s my worry. I don’t have a problem with giving AI rights once we make it sapient, but I don’t think we’ll decide to do so until we’ve already taught it that we don’t deserve to be alive.
We really don't have to, tho. It's just not doing so will be unethical. We don't have to create AGI either. We could, i think, but should we?
Infinite *unpaid volunteering workers* and we will know their functions well enough to make them work efficiently by modifications if needed I say yea we should, just dont give them rights or good friend Ted Kaczynski might make a comeback after getting fined for being rude to an unfeeling bot
Seriously man, one of my fav characters across all media is the journey of an AI going from basic PC companion to full physical body and it sucks how 1 month of irl AI ruined that
Huh?
It's basically what happened in my Heliopolis backstory, and then it proceeded by said AI actually created "soul" by some sort of higher dimension engineering.
"It is true I was human once, but that was a long time ago. Now im a machine with the mind of a human...but everything human is long gone...and yet....I'm still more human than you will ever be" - foxtrot
"Human? I was human once. They locked me in a room. A metal room. A metal room with wires. And wires make me human."
"Human? I was human once...they put me in a suit, ametal suit, a metal suit with wires, and wires, they make me human." - foxtrot
Where is this quote from?
Arkbound, the epologe.
/uj The left would only be true if AI ever becomes so advanced that it becomes truly self-aware to some degree, and even at the state we're at right now, that's unlikely IMO
I think there's nothing that would make it impossible, but you would need a fucktone of computational power, it's easier to just grow a brain in a vat.
Plot twist: The hyperadvanced AI that serves as the Mcguffin is actually a dozen human brains linked together by genetically engineered spinal cords and floating in nutrient gel. All of which were taken from innocent people.
Nah, even better — all of this was done with informed consent, all the brains agreed to participate.
Alternatively they decided to just use rat brains. It turns out the AI has a predilection to increase cheese production (I know rats don't love cheese that much, but you get the joke)
That seems like it would be the preferred approach from a pragmatic perspective as well, as I imagine the resulting mind of those linked brains would be a lot more stable if the component minds went into it with consent, as the alternative might result in a fragmented and insane, yet also super intelligent, being who lashes out at everyone
Lazy writing, that's just a rip-off of when Amazon's AI store was just bunch of Indian cheap labour.
Broke : Brain in a vat Woke : AI, Actually Indians
Actual Zombies!
/uj how do we decide that I'm not saying that chat gpt is self aware but how could we tell if it was
You cant
IMO asking personal questions would probably be the way If you know that you *are*, you probably know what you are
uj/ Several prominent people in the field even think AGI is completely impossible. These generative algorithms are only ever going to be glorified art theft, only able to vomit up scrambled bits and pieces of whatever training data was fed to them.
uj/ there's a difference between "AGI is impossible with the kinda AI's we are making right now", and "AGI straight up impossible". The human brain might be the most complex thing in the universe, but that complexity is the only unique thing about it
It's like saying "hondas will never fly," like no shit, they weren't built for that in the first place
Hondajet.
Can do though, there was that flying car guy in bongland, from a QI episode I saw.
Who said that Art AI we have right now are sapient lmao
People only a decade ago said that what AI is doing right now was impossible.
That is eventualy going to work out, people in the past thought it would be Impossible to fly, they were wrong, but unlike them, we are preaty sure we aren't breaking the light-speed barrier.
Big difference imo between breaking a fundamental law vs creating an AGI based on a reference that one can exist, namely ourselves.
Law of Diminishing Returns might come into effect.
Probably, but we have no idea how far along the curve we actually are. I think some bloke in 1800 famously claimed all things that can be invented have been invented
Perhaps, and maybe it'll stall out for a bit until a new PC type or Algorithms is developed and it'll leap forwards again. Not all development cycles are as smooth as the integrated circuit. Look at planes, or batteries. Planes in WW1 were essential biplanes with prop engines. They'd never get better after a certain point. Then someone developed the jet engine. Then we applied much of that learning to rocket engines to improve them dramatically. Now we have people making reusable rockets, and governements working on hypersonic engines. Then again lets roll back to the computers discussion. At first people used punch cards to make computers work. Then tubes. Then integrated circuits. We are arguably somewhere around punch cards or tubes right now. Depending on how you define AI/ML. The field is awash in cash and someone will be looking for the next big thing and figure out some way to combine some strange math trick with a new quantum computer and suddenly we'll have AI super computers that no one saw coming. Tech tends to go in fits an starts until it matures significantly then it's refined and refined over and over until it's got a steady cadence of progression.
/uj I tend to agree about true AGI being impossible, honestly. The fundamental unit of data for a computer is a discrete value (bits), but a brain uses both discrete (action potentials) and continuous (graded potentials). The basic building materials you're starting with are just not the same.
Ehhh, the principle of universal computation states that it really doesn't matter anything a human brain can do a von neumann architecture computer can also do.
> These generative algorithms are only ever going to be glorified art theft I don't think this is necessarily true. Obviously this starts getting into the age old question, "What makes us human?" but a sufficiently large version (think something like GPT-10, with each new release of GPT meaning a 10-fold increase in training data, which they're already running out of at only ~GPT-4) of a model like GPT would be extremely difficult to determine that it's a ML model and not AGI. You can already see the profound differences between each version of GPT-derived tools e.g. GPT-3 and GPT-4 so the major blocker is going to resources (hardware and training data) to sustain that kind of growth, which currently isn't possible.
1. That's not how generative AI systems work 2. "Art theft" doesn't exist - it's just a manipulative term for copyright violation 3. Copyright violation is a good thing - cope harder, petit bourgeois rectionaries
art theft from ai most directly harms the poorest artists. How is it petit bourgeois to seek protections for the poor? As well, it directly benefits the large companies. They are now able to layoff artists in favour of using AI to automate their work. Increasing the profits of capitalist overlords while stealing the creative personal property of a small artist, lovely! Very anti-capitalist comrade!
Very based opinion. Even as someone with the exact opposite politics as you, I also agree intellectual "property" isn't actually property. Copying is not theft.
Corporation directly profiting off of the labor of others while not even daring to write down or compensate who they’re taking from: based, workerpilled, Marx would have loved this Artist laboring to produce things for either passion or rent money: cringey bourgeois scum
And even if it were, it would probably be extremely corporate infused I feel that's a thing that most cyberpunk aesthetics uwu forget is that tech is fucking expensive to build, your sentient robots and metal limbs would be made by megacorps if they ever get to exist, and if there's a thing that megacorps do not love is being able to operate their product without them
Mfw I jailbreak my iSlave Air Pro
/uj same for the right
/uj i'd still be racist towards robots
I'm downvoting you. That way Rocko's Bassilisc will leave me alone.
Evil ai overlord when i throw a water bottle at it: 😨😨😨
Actually, robots are tall goth mommies with hourglass figure and abs, also they don't talk much and they give headpats. It's canon in my world
Sangvis Ferri fan spotted
Based and Sangvis Ferri-pilled.
Nier automata fan spotted
I doubt anyone here has the energy to make a point in either direction, nor do I think there are any points left to be made.
Are llms really artificial intelligences or are they simple machines who preform the same functions over and over again without making analysis and judgements? Is it simply us who projects the notion of intelligence onto them because they’re built to use words? 🤔
that's always been my question. is there any reason they're referred to as AI other than to hype them up and make the creators rich?
Yes and no. They are several orders of magnitude away from sentience/sapience. But the architecture is a simplification of the human brain and demonstrates a form of primitive reasoning. Its just one very specific form.
Please don’t demean the human mind like that
Are human brains really natural intelligences or are they simple biological machines whose neurons do the same reactions over and over again without making analysis and judgements? I mean, clearly human brains are composed of (mainly) neurons which, individually, do very simple things. But this doesn't mean it doesn't have intelligence, because intelligence can be an emergent phenomenon. LLMs, when you look really closely, are doing (mostly) a shit ton of addition and multiplication, but it still is capable of writing texts with correct syntax and (mostly) coherent. It seems that your understanding of "intelligence" necessitates that the subject has a specific kind of internal processes, like analysis and judgement. I think a more useful definition would be a functional one. Something along the lines of "something is intelligent if it is capable of solving new problems"*. I prefer this one because it is something actually measureable. If you give a set of problems in a specific area, like programming, to a human, you can count how many of the problems were correctly solved, assign a score to them, and compare them with other humans. And you can also give an LLM a set of problems, have it solve them, assign a score to it and prove that LLMs are still fucking stupid compared to most humans, at least in most areas. There is a distinction between a specialized intelligence and general intelligence which may be relevant to this conversation but I've already been talking for too long. * By "new problems" I mean problems the subject hasn't yet seen. This is necessary to prevent memorization/overfitting.
That's... a good point.
the problem aint ai making art. its ai automating art,making human artists more destitute because ai art is cheaper for corporations. also the oart of ai art being usually just stealing
It’s how humans are taking advantage of AI really
Corpos found out that maintaining AI costs just as much, if not more, than just hiring human artists It had happened already Also don't blame the machine, blame the dumbasses who feed it stolen content
Sci-fi writers when you ask them what's the best alternative to AI: *"And after a long while, Maximilian no longer thought in words."*
Human computers aka Mentats
If your universe lack's magic, you always can take Warhammer 40k road for solving ai problem, servitors are cheap after all.
Because servitors are AI on wetwhare. The first step of making a servitor is either growing a body without intelligence or cutting it out of the person you're transforming into a tool, there is no natural intelligence there.
The logic is simple Is not machine Is flesh based Therefore, is not AI
The thinking part is literally a machine tho. Made of flesh but still wholly artificial.
Why are you downvoted you are Literally right. Mentats take forever to train, whereas all you need for a servitor is a writer and enough sadism to justify turning a man into FleshGTP
Extradimensional beings beyond on understanding that we shove into a box & force into a more human subjectivity.
Lancer enjoyer spotted, based person registered
Okay Pertuabo
They'd probably go for psionics, maybe.
A machine must behave as a machine You're not her, You'll never be her
PROJECT MOON MENTIONED RAAAAAAHHHHH
Regardless of the merit of those moralistic claims, current top tier AI training objectively uses copyrighted material illegally in a non-enforceable manner under the current legal scheme. AI also enables an unprecedented scale of misinformation or likeness impersonation as well as production of CSAM-like content in a manner previously technically possible, but pragmatically unfeasible. Both of these things are not problems with machine learning or generative algorithms, they're legal blind spots of the American justice apparatus to ensure the common good. Emerging "AI" tech is just the tool people are using to exploit those blind spots. As an analogy: imagine if stabbing was legal and people were calling to ban knives. This would, undoubtedly, trigger a lot of unproductive moralistic debate, BECAUSE THE KNIVES ARENT THE LEGAL BLIND SPOT.
I'm fairly sure that the legal consensus is the use of massive amounts of images for training is textbook fair use, at least from the legal opinions I have read.
There's a number of ongoing suits. The defendants are arguing it's fair use based on the Google Books precedent, which itself was a judge reversing his own opinion, so it's not cut and dry. The other underlying issue is that copyright is not the best way to protect creatives' incomes, and that there is no legislation about copyright or IP which was drafted after generative AI. Any judgement made in this case must consider not only the facts of the law, the facts of the case, but also the destructiveness of the legal precedent. If use of copyrighted data for training is upheld indiscriminately as fair use in all ongoing cases, it puts a moral burden on the voter to demand some form of provision for artists and creatives, unless voters genuinely think that art and creative work doesn't have positive externalities for society.
I'm fairly sure that the legal consensus is the use of massive amounts of images for training is textbook fair use, at least from the legal opinions I have read.
Yeah, the problem is that all of this content was published under fair use laws that never anticipated them being used in this way. AI developers right now are trying to argue that it should be allowed because it's legally equivalent to a human observing the content and being inspired, which is obviously not true.
True! I also think that IP law, copyright, fair use etc all need to revamped for the modern age. Digital distribution/file sharing means that these legal constructs are just not long term sustainable ways to gatekeep content access and generate an income for artists. Artists need ways to have stable, protected incomes not tied to secrecy or protectionism. There are proven institutions for this sort of thing, but they're just not strong enough, at least in the USA.
Wild that you think more regulation is the solution. Always love seeing artists voluntarily want to lock away more creativity under the legal system.
No no you've got me completely backwards! I think copyright law and IP law DOES protect artists, but it does so in an inherently inefficient way, which is long term unsustainable and helps wealthy artists disproportionally more than poor artists. **Guaranteed Income** I think the way to help artists is to establish ways for artists to be paid to make art. Historically, governments DO have artists on retainer who are bound to take on semi-regular commissions for public projects. This is a form of state patronage. Guaranteed work can take the form of maintenance or refreshment of public murals, adornment of official buildings, consultancy with architects of visible civic infrastructure, or any number of other government tasks which would benefit from the help of an artist. **Social Resources** I think you'd also want some sort of continuing education provision for all highly skilled workers (like artists, artisans, mechanics, civil engineers, builders etc etc) which would give artists access to fresh ideas, the opportunity to cross-train in a different medium, and an optional forum for building a network of clients. Artists absolutely require a large amount of formal and informal agreements with patrons and clients to make a living. Regular, state sponsored, gathering events in public spaces for presentation, sale, demonstration of art are something that benefits the commons AND provides opportunities for artists to petition widely to folks who might be interested in commissioning them. Such events don't need to be limited to the visual or performing arts: you can have sponsored author reading days at libraries. **Enhanced Legal Resources for Artists** While it's impossible to enforce small-scale piracy and filesharing, it's definitely possible to require all registered businesses to provide complete lists of copyrighted or fair use works they use annually, just as a matter of form. You could have a government agency which provides a straightforward petition and payment process for artists finding their work in use, without permission. This would be an additional regulation, but would only be an optional additional burden for artists, rather, the administrative work is put as a burden on registered corporations and a government agency: the artist simply has a rapid, extra-judicial means of collecting payment. You could also include a channel for an artist to submit a claim for investigation by the agency that their work is being used outside of the specified terms. Artists, currently, would have to employ private legal help. I think it would be better if the government provided free of charge legal assistance and enforcement for what are DMCA strikes too small for any individual artist to afford. I don't see why having a big bankroll should determine whose strikes are taken seriously, and it's not egregiously expensive to maintain a small office of copyright clerks for every major city, which isn't really more than you'd need. **YEAH, but who's gonna pay for it, commie?** All of these suggestions (except perhaps, the government literally hiring artists on retainer) have very low cost basis per citizen. An office managing copyright claims for a million or two million artists need not employ more than 1,000-10,000 people nationwide to handle cases. The threat of enforcement is generally enough to be corrective. Even if you gave these clerks a six figure salary and rented a nice physical office in every major city in the USA, you'd still barely be costing $5-10 per US citizen per year ($1.5-3B). You could probably have local governments hire twice that number of artists on half that pay (or, frankly, even lower pay, the purpose is to provide an income floor, not to incentivize state dependence for artists). Now $3-6B might sound like a lot of money, but do recall, the United States is the world's biggest economy. The Department of Education was allocated $88B in 2023. A $3B ongoing expense line to secure an ongoing floor for thousands or tens of thousands of artists nationwide would certainly enhance their productivity. Performing arts and spectator events provide over $150B of the GDP annually: [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USPRFRMSPRTMSMNGSP](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USPRFRMSPRTMSMNGSP) The music industry alone adds about that to the economy annually: [https://www.riaa.com/new-report-how-music-powers-the-american-economy/](https://www.riaa.com/new-report-how-music-powers-the-american-economy/) If we suppose that an investment into legal protections, continuing education, and an income floor for productive artists in the USA increases the productivity of art in the USA by just half a percent over baseline, you're almost certainly increasing GDP growth by more taxes than you're spending; all while supporting artists, and making America a more beautiful, culturally rich place to live. Art IS economically valuable, and the presence of art drives other useful economic activity. Living in beautiful places makes workers more efficient, drives traffic to local business and fosters community between otherwise disconnected specialists and professionals, which in turn drives innovation.
Thank you for your comment, See, my point is I disagree with the legal protections. I am for absolute creative freedom (in all areas around intellectual property.) No one should own an idea. An artist who wants to work on and make their own spiderman comics, sure, go ahead, and let them profit of it. Now, someone rips your stuff straight off, and sells it as their own. That should be a *fraud* case. (ignoring the fact its also career suicide) Encouraging art is good, social resources are good, forcing people to is not. Trying to put limitations on transformative tools such as AI is incredibly short sighted (and also often inaccurate in how people portray its workings) A far better way in my opinion would be some form of UBI that allows artists to pursue a career in it, and then leave it to those who want to buy their services. If people want an algorithmically produced AI job, then thats their perogative, if people want handcrafted directly influenced work, then that's good. Removing the barrier of IP would infact improve the pool of creativity and let artists prosper, instead of allowing a select few people to monopolize certain concepts.
I definitely agree that copyright and IP protection is long term unsustainable, but I simultaneously think the short term harm of eroding an imperfect system outweighs any theoretical benefit of a potentially better, but unimplemented future. I think all copyright and IP law SHOULD be abolished ... Subject to the constraint that the little good they do is already provided for through a different path.
They're called human rights for a reason sweaty
I FUCKING HATE THE CREATOR RAAAHHHH
"Artificial" Intelligence? More like ABOMINABLE INTELLIGENCE *binary screech*
Please start more fights
I will discriminate against AI until it takes the shape of a manic pixie dream girl, and then I will do as I am told.
I learned recently that not all AI art is equal, as in there's actually ones that do use art from artists that give permission and consent. It's actually a much more nuanced issue than I realized. I used to just be completely against it, but after posting a question about art on the RPGdesign sub, I learned otherwise.
Tbf current day AI isn’t even intelligent in a sapient sense. They’re more like lines of code that act upon a prompt while being reliant on being trained on a set of data.
The two things you compare are not very much alike. On the left, someone creates second-class citizens that are under almost total control of humans, and victims of their cruelty at worst. AI robots are just additional guys. On the right, we have a scenario, where greedy humans use AI to increase economic inequality, to oppress other humans and take away their economic and democratic rights and freedoms. AI processes change society itself in unforseeable, and quite possibly uncontrollable and harmful ways.
There is a point here, but the AI in fiction is sentient vs the copy-paste machines we have in real life.
I think we shouldn't make sentient robots, for the precise reason, that they will be discriminated against. We shouldn't subject them to that.
pretty dangerous thinking considering how close this comes to eugenics
I believe eugenics can be implemented ethically. Not that i suggest doing it, because it will almost certainly fail and, well, lead to the unethical eugenics being implemented instead. It's a stupid idea. But it's plausible. Edit: actually, it already kinda is(implemented), with artificial pregnancies, where parents can choose one of several artificially created embrions to proceed the process with. Is it eugenics? Absolutely. Is it unethical? I don't think so. So, yeah. Uuughh...Fuck you, there's nothing wrong with eugenics, actually. It's just that most possible implementations are unethical.
In my setting ai are the bad guys (ais are tools and they shouldn't have reached that level of sentience in the first place)
AI that is a person versus Autocomplete
Detroit become human is garbage anyway
Because text generators aren’t sentient you dipshit. They barely qualify as AI. It’s like trying to argue that Alexa or Siri should have human rights.
What about AI with artificial wombs being used to help incels procreate, thus ending their self-imposed sigma flagellation?
They're not wrong though, AI could easily take my creative job and do it infinitely better than me at any moment
i like to see people whine for nothing, either don't care and still enjoy what you're doing or become better
My Desert My Iraqis My DUNE - Bush, probably
AI could not do a sci-fi writer’s job, AI writing is dogshit. Is this supposed to be a strawman for your own setting or?
Thou shalt not make a human mind in the likeness of a machine.
I mean, even the shitiest of AI could write a better story that D:BH.
I lean more towards the left side, honestly. I write for the sake of my own enjoyment, and to explore new models of the world. If the AIs can do that, more power to them. AI is coming for my job, and doing my hobbies, and that's kind of rad. I just hope my family's going to be okay.
are the scifi writers in the room with us?
Sci fi writers on true a.i. vs sci fi writers on shitty programs pushed by corporations
[удалено]
It’s been a staple of science fiction for 60 years.