AI is forcing the hand of the Demoscene.
category: general [glöplog]
Quote:
although it's virtually impossible for a human to win against some AI with an ELO rating of 3500+ chess is now bigger than ever(even the Kasparov/Karpov era)
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/09/carlsen-niemann-chess-cheating-poker/671472/
@ham HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA
"Colossus: The Forbin Project"
The 1970 movie that inspired Cameron: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064177/
The 1970 movie that inspired Cameron: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064177/
I see just opportunity for exploitation, until we understand the limitations. And then AI generated content ends up as another tool in the toolbox. The process of creation is not becoming inherently different.
@bifat : Spot on. I agree 100%. LLMs are technology. No one should believe or be lead to believe that technology is intrinsically progressive. It's not. It's not intrinsically evil either. It's totally ambiguous to concepts such as 'progress'. Of course, it's not neutral, for it, naturally, holds shards of its creators biases.
Plus:
1) LLMs are NOT intelligent. At least not more than, say, expert systems. I think less in fact. They are glorified autofill.
2) Their potential to cause harm to human society at this specific point in time is very high because it looks they will lower the bar (time, expertise and effort wise) for mass production of low (yet sufficient) quality fakery in a system already saturated with all kinds of informational noise. In other words, it will get easier to further blur and skew facts using LLMs and this is already happening. In yet other words they will dramatically enhance information system entropy.
3) We see LLMs getting (beside flat out abuse) over-used these days thanks to marketing hype. Using them for tasks easily accomplishable by grossly less complicated technology is extremely resource inefficient and thus exacerbates ecological crisis.
4) One should have (1), (2) and (3) in mind before going for the 'cool and enlightened new age' pose. Otherwise it just sounds like some "prophecy" that Bene Gesserit planted hundreds of years ago for possible future use.
But, I severely strayed from the subject.
Plus:
1) LLMs are NOT intelligent. At least not more than, say, expert systems. I think less in fact. They are glorified autofill.
2) Their potential to cause harm to human society at this specific point in time is very high because it looks they will lower the bar (time, expertise and effort wise) for mass production of low (yet sufficient) quality fakery in a system already saturated with all kinds of informational noise. In other words, it will get easier to further blur and skew facts using LLMs and this is already happening. In yet other words they will dramatically enhance information system entropy.
3) We see LLMs getting (beside flat out abuse) over-used these days thanks to marketing hype. Using them for tasks easily accomplishable by grossly less complicated technology is extremely resource inefficient and thus exacerbates ecological crisis.
4) One should have (1), (2) and (3) in mind before going for the 'cool and enlightened new age' pose. Otherwise it just sounds like some "prophecy" that Bene Gesserit planted hundreds of years ago for possible future use.
But, I severely strayed from the subject.
@4gentE:
I was mostly speaking about the impact and relevance for the demoscene.
Here I find this to be the most natural thing to do, it fits perfectly.
(Ab)use technology to do cool shit, and then use your creativity to obfuscate it, so that you can bring in the fame. Create software that fakes workstages.
Having fun and being creative with machines: Good
Being opportunistic in exploitaton of technology: Good
Copyrights: With all the money that's in demos, we and everybody else couldn't care less, except for maybe if we had previously painted ourselves into corners with a moral high ground :-)
I was mostly speaking about the impact and relevance for the demoscene.
Here I find this to be the most natural thing to do, it fits perfectly.
(Ab)use technology to do cool shit, and then use your creativity to obfuscate it, so that you can bring in the fame. Create software that fakes workstages.
Having fun and being creative with machines: Good
Being opportunistic in exploitaton of technology: Good
Copyrights: With all the money that's in demos, we and everybody else couldn't care less, except for maybe if we had previously painted ourselves into corners with a moral high ground :-)
@4gentE: Fear is the mind-killer. Embrace the uncertain future.
@bifat:
Everything you say makes basic sense. However, I can't bring myself to like (from the top of my head) at least 2 things about it all: (1) the environmental impact of these systems that need huge server farms is gonna be huge so I really don't think they should be used for jerking around (that's basically what demoscene does, jerking around, right?) and (2) these systems add another level of unnecessary abstraction to crafting of demoscene artifacts. I think this is bad, and I don't think this is really the demoscene ethos, quite contrary I see demoscene ethos as being hands-on and close to the metal. I refuse to watch Unreal Engine demos (as example of added abstraction). LLMs remain a black box to large extent, even for some involved scientists and engineers.
@ham:
ThumbsUp
Bloat is the mind killer.
Everything you say makes basic sense. However, I can't bring myself to like (from the top of my head) at least 2 things about it all: (1) the environmental impact of these systems that need huge server farms is gonna be huge so I really don't think they should be used for jerking around (that's basically what demoscene does, jerking around, right?) and (2) these systems add another level of unnecessary abstraction to crafting of demoscene artifacts. I think this is bad, and I don't think this is really the demoscene ethos, quite contrary I see demoscene ethos as being hands-on and close to the metal. I refuse to watch Unreal Engine demos (as example of added abstraction). LLMs remain a black box to large extent, even for some involved scientists and engineers.
@ham:
ThumbsUp
Bloat is the mind killer.
your basic mistake is assuming that anyone cares (don't worry, i made the same mistake.)
@4AgentE:
If at some point we have no energy that we are allowed to spend on whatever nonsense we please, after we've paid a huge price for it, then I don't know where this is supposed to end - in politically-ecologically correct hell probably.
For the perfectly correct demoscene, first let's get rid of all the evil that is PCs and their GPUs. And then let's stomp out all the other filth, one by one.
If you consider abstraction unnecessary, that's your take on it, and I agree 100% for my own perspective. But I have to respect that others want these levels of abstraction to achieve the freedom to express themselves creatively. This would also affect C64 basic or AMOS demos for example. Shown on an 68060 needlessly, could've been coded in proper assembler, and show about the same on an 68000. This is too restrictive for me.
If at some point we have no energy that we are allowed to spend on whatever nonsense we please, after we've paid a huge price for it, then I don't know where this is supposed to end - in politically-ecologically correct hell probably.
For the perfectly correct demoscene, first let's get rid of all the evil that is PCs and their GPUs. And then let's stomp out all the other filth, one by one.
If you consider abstraction unnecessary, that's your take on it, and I agree 100% for my own perspective. But I have to respect that others want these levels of abstraction to achieve the freedom to express themselves creatively. This would also affect C64 basic or AMOS demos for example. Shown on an 68060 needlessly, could've been coded in proper assembler, and show about the same on an 68000. This is too restrictive for me.
I would enjoy it immensely if someone started advocating the need to abandon the use of compilers, as they are an evil form of AI that, through a layer of abstraction, separates us from direct assembly programming! :]
Don't worry so much about wasting energy because the mere existence of brains like those of humans and other animals proves that an intelligent machine capable of learning and modeling the world can be quite energy efficient.
In the future, "artificial brains" could be just as energy-efficient as biological ones.
Don't worry so much about wasting energy because the mere existence of brains like those of humans and other animals proves that an intelligent machine capable of learning and modeling the world can be quite energy efficient.
In the future, "artificial brains" could be just as energy-efficient as biological ones.
Quote:
In the future, "artificial brains" could be just as energy-efficient as biological ones.
What future ?
There are many futures. Time is not a straight line. It's a tree.
Pick one that's fun! :]
Pick one that's fun! :]
@Gargaj: Well, I tried...
@bifat: You wanna know where this ends? Chances are it ends in scorched planet. In hunger. Migration. Real, physical human suffering. How's that for "politically-ecologically correct hell"? And for what? For literally nothing. So that we white mama's boys dont't ever have to grow up. To have our precious feelings intact. To have our ever bigger penis extensions installed and play make-believe that they are for real. So that we can imagine we're not only being and acting "free", but that by using the Cuckoo egg blackboxes being thrown at us we can paint ourselves as "freedom fighters". It's pathetic. Why would anyone in his right mind indulge in that? On the other hand, if this is the extent of our societies evolution, of our civilization and collective intelligence, then by all means, bring along the AI. And one can only hope it's gonna be f*ckin Skynet.
About me considering excessive abstraction not only unnecessary but downright harmful - that's my own take - it doesn't have to be the whole scene's take - You're completely right about that.
Apart from all else I said:
Wouldn't it be way better if AI arts&crafts opened up a whole new subculture, something new, big, shiny, creative. If it liberated itself from these archaic demoscene constraints? Why should it be injected in a small, incestuous and aging community as the demoscene at all?
@bifat: You wanna know where this ends? Chances are it ends in scorched planet. In hunger. Migration. Real, physical human suffering. How's that for "politically-ecologically correct hell"? And for what? For literally nothing. So that we white mama's boys dont't ever have to grow up. To have our precious feelings intact. To have our ever bigger penis extensions installed and play make-believe that they are for real. So that we can imagine we're not only being and acting "free", but that by using the Cuckoo egg blackboxes being thrown at us we can paint ourselves as "freedom fighters". It's pathetic. Why would anyone in his right mind indulge in that? On the other hand, if this is the extent of our societies evolution, of our civilization and collective intelligence, then by all means, bring along the AI. And one can only hope it's gonna be f*ckin Skynet.
About me considering excessive abstraction not only unnecessary but downright harmful - that's my own take - it doesn't have to be the whole scene's take - You're completely right about that.
Apart from all else I said:
Wouldn't it be way better if AI arts&crafts opened up a whole new subculture, something new, big, shiny, creative. If it liberated itself from these archaic demoscene constraints? Why should it be injected in a small, incestuous and aging community as the demoscene at all?
Quote:
There are many futures. Time is not a straight line. It's a tree.
To me everything is deterministic, nothing comes from nothing so there's only one possible future.
I think that if we are going to enter into discussions about AI it is useful to define a context within which the conversation will take place. Is demoscene our topic? Is it the graphic arts? Is it Creativity as a primary intellectual function of humans? Generalizing and putting a bit of all of the above into the conversation makes it more difficult to follow and contribute.
So I will focus on Boris Vallejo that a fellow demoscener brought as an example. Vallejo is an established illustrator who sells his original handmade works at hefty prices. He probably charges hefty prices for commissions as well. I would guess there are hundreds of illustrators around the world who have been imitating Vallejo's style for years. Has Vallejo quit his practice because of them? Has he stopped selling relatively expensive printed signed reproductions of his works?
Seems that's not the case. People who are into Boris Vallejo will want “Boris Vallejo”, not “lookalike”. Collectors pay 5K for a Boris Vallejo original painting, or 150 dollars for a signed print. Both these things are material objects. At the moment an AI generated “In style of Vallejo” is either a digital picture or a digital print of a digital picture, carrying all the debatable qualities of the process.
For people with less cash in their pockets, there are shops on Etsy that sell posters with his works for around 15 euros (I imagine they have the rights). Hell, you could download and print a Vallejo for cheap on your own and be done with all that. At the same time there are posters tagged "Boris Vallejo style" for as low as 5 euros. I'm not sure a sane publisher would invest in producing expensive quality posters, graphic books or other material of the matter only to tag it as "pictures in the style of a famous fantasy illustrator".
When it comes to AI, Boris Vallejo is pretty safe because alongside his work he sells his name and his signature. Hell, he could even go to midjourney, type in a few "in the style of Vallejo" prompts, print the results, sign them and sell them for any price you'd want to guess.
On the other hand, all those other hundreds of Illustrators from around the world that imitate the style of Boris Vallejo may have an issue with AI generated pictures; even more so if Boris Vallejo decides on making his own AI generated pictures.
So I will focus on Boris Vallejo that a fellow demoscener brought as an example. Vallejo is an established illustrator who sells his original handmade works at hefty prices. He probably charges hefty prices for commissions as well. I would guess there are hundreds of illustrators around the world who have been imitating Vallejo's style for years. Has Vallejo quit his practice because of them? Has he stopped selling relatively expensive printed signed reproductions of his works?
Seems that's not the case. People who are into Boris Vallejo will want “Boris Vallejo”, not “lookalike”. Collectors pay 5K for a Boris Vallejo original painting, or 150 dollars for a signed print. Both these things are material objects. At the moment an AI generated “In style of Vallejo” is either a digital picture or a digital print of a digital picture, carrying all the debatable qualities of the process.
For people with less cash in their pockets, there are shops on Etsy that sell posters with his works for around 15 euros (I imagine they have the rights). Hell, you could download and print a Vallejo for cheap on your own and be done with all that. At the same time there are posters tagged "Boris Vallejo style" for as low as 5 euros. I'm not sure a sane publisher would invest in producing expensive quality posters, graphic books or other material of the matter only to tag it as "pictures in the style of a famous fantasy illustrator".
When it comes to AI, Boris Vallejo is pretty safe because alongside his work he sells his name and his signature. Hell, he could even go to midjourney, type in a few "in the style of Vallejo" prompts, print the results, sign them and sell them for any price you'd want to guess.
On the other hand, all those other hundreds of Illustrators from around the world that imitate the style of Boris Vallejo may have an issue with AI generated pictures; even more so if Boris Vallejo decides on making his own AI generated pictures.
@rexbeng:
Boris Vallejo is 82 years old. He is VERY established, and he couldn't care less at this point. He started painting as a kid with, you know, his hands. Then he got art education. And, truth be told, I'm not at all into his art or style. What I was trying to talk about were the future Vallejos. It seems to me that there will be no future Vallejos, at least not ones who will start with pencils and go for art education, there will only be prompt jockeys. I'm not evaluating this as something good or bad, I'm just saying that in the future (if there is one) a kid with crayons will stand no chance. And I don't like it. Because only a fresh mind with a pencil is able to create something new, original. These prompt machines regurgitate everything that came before them, how can't you guys see that? They are conservative, turned backwards instead of forwards.
Boris Vallejo is 82 years old. He is VERY established, and he couldn't care less at this point. He started painting as a kid with, you know, his hands. Then he got art education. And, truth be told, I'm not at all into his art or style. What I was trying to talk about were the future Vallejos. It seems to me that there will be no future Vallejos, at least not ones who will start with pencils and go for art education, there will only be prompt jockeys. I'm not evaluating this as something good or bad, I'm just saying that in the future (if there is one) a kid with crayons will stand no chance. And I don't like it. Because only a fresh mind with a pencil is able to create something new, original. These prompt machines regurgitate everything that came before them, how can't you guys see that? They are conservative, turned backwards instead of forwards.
i think you all are vastly overestimating how much people care about ai art lol
they are also vastly overestimating their wetware…
lmao yeah
@4gentE:
That correctly implies that chances are not. But if you'd fully convinced me of the inevitability, we'd arrive at the point that I cannot advocate the restriction of other people based on a belief system of the two of us. Next you would have to convince me that this restriction would be outweighing the interests in freedom to express onself artistically or otherwise.
Quote:
Chances are it ends in scorched planet.
That correctly implies that chances are not. But if you'd fully convinced me of the inevitability, we'd arrive at the point that I cannot advocate the restriction of other people based on a belief system of the two of us. Next you would have to convince me that this restriction would be outweighing the interests in freedom to express onself artistically or otherwise.
Plus: In my original "Vallejo" post I was not expressing my opinion, I was trying to illustrate what law and lawyers define as "fair use". That's not what I think of it, that's what's been written into law exactly like that, it's not a matter of opinion.
@bitfat:
Not everything is a "belief-system". There are, You know, metrics. Also there are cost/benefit calculations.
Not everything is a "belief-system". There are, You know, metrics. Also there are cost/benefit calculations.
it's always so much fun to see a bunch of coders and musicians yap about how artists are in danger bla bla bla
By the way I guess you guys are aware that LLMs will soon be able to produce hundreds of fake websites mimicking this one, all with fake "tradition", fake prods, fake human interactions in fake forums, whole nine yards. Per hour perhaps. Hundreds per hour. Gee, what could go wrong?