I’ve found that AI has done literally nothing to improve my life in any way and has really just caused endless frustrations. From the enshitification of journalism to ruining pretty much all tech support and customer service, what is the point of this shit?
I work on the Salesforce platform and now I have their dumbass account managers harassing my team to buy into their stupid AI customer service agents. Really, the only AI highlight that I have seen is the guy that made the tool to spam job applications to combat worthless AI job recruiters and HR tools.
Going through data and writing letters are the only tasks I’ve seen AI be useful for. I still wouldn’t trust it as far as I could kick it’s ass and I’d check it well before submitting for work.
Have you seen neuro sama?
Kitboga has used AI (STT, LLMs, and TTS) to waste the time of Scammers.
There are AI tools being used to develop new cures which will benefit everyone.
There are AI tools being used to help discover new planets.
I use DLSS for gaming.
I run a lot of my own local AI models for various reasons. Whisper - for Audio Transcriptions/Translations.
Different Diffusion Models (SD or Flux) - for some quick visuals to recap a D&D session.
Tesseract OCR - to scan an image and extract any text that it can find (makes it easy to pull out text from any image and make it searchable).
Local LLMs (Llama, Mixtral) for brainstorming ideas, reformatting text, etc. It’s great for getting started with certain subjects/topics, as long as I verify everything that it says.
For fun I’ll probably setup GLaDOS like what was done here: https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1csnexs/local_glados_now_running_on_windows_11_rtx_2060/
deleted by creator
Yes. Ai art is great. It’s a new medium and pretty much every argument against it was made against photography a century ago, and most of them against pre-mixed paints before that. Stop believing the haters who don;t know what it actually is.
My main argument againt it is that I could not care less about something generated by a machine. What I like about art is seeing the world from the perspective of another human. Machines could make music albums or movies in seconds, to me it’s just a bland mashup of previous works created by humans and I have no interest in that. AI is only capable of creating variations of human art, not innovation like real artist can. We are on the edge of infinite content, I chose to give my time to human creation, not generic spin-off of it. My two cents.
Most things produced by AI and assisted by AI are still human creation, as it requires a human to guide it to what it’s making. Human innovation is also very much based on mixing materials it’s seen before in new creative manners. Almost no material is truly innovative. Ask any honest artists about their inspirations and they can tell you what parts of their creations were inspired by what. Our world has explored the depths of most art forms so there is more than a lifetime’s worth of art to mix and match. Often the real reason things feel fresh and new is because they are fresh and new to us, but already existed in some form out there before it came to our attention.
That AI can match this is easily proven by fact AI can create material that no human would realistically make (like AI generated QR codes, or ‘cursed’ AI), very proficient style mixing that would take a human extensive study of both styles to pull off (eg. Pokemon and real life), or real looking images that could not realistically, financially, conscionably, be made using normal methods (eg. A bus full of greek marble statues).
Nobody is saying you have to like AI art, and depending on your perspective, some or most of it will still be really low effort and not worth paying attention to, but that was already the state of art before AI. Lifetimes of art are being uploaded every day, but nobody has the time to view it all. So I would really keep an open mind that good AI art and AI assisted art exists out there, and you might one day come to like it but not realize you’re seeing it, because good AI usage is indistinguishable from normal art.
Here’s a little story for you. I’m a composer and college music teacher. Just last week, I was meeting with a potential client for music pieces and sfx for an app. I gave him my prices, which I consider to have been really low since the project was very simple, and he ended up telling me that it was really too expensive, and asking me why I didn’t have the tracks done by AI. I told him he wasn’t looking for a composer, but rather a programmer or something. I’ve been learning to play and compose and perfecting my artistic practice for 30 years. I’ve managed to make my passion my job because creating music is the thing that gives me the most satisfaction in the world. I have no interest in replacing this practice by entering prompts into an algorithm, even if I could make easy money from it. I’m a composer, that’s what I wanna do. In recent years, I’ve seen some of my students in their early twenties, often with absolutely no understanding of musical parameters, and who have already released two or three albums. At this point, someone who has never touched an instrument or produced a single piece of music on it’s own could be releasing an album a week. I’m not saying that this music is necessarily bad, I’m just saying that it doesn’t interest me, since there’s no artistic intention or approach behind it. I could also tell you about the works written by
I could also tell you about the written assignments that students hand in, and for which I can identify in less than 30 seconds which ones have been produced by AI (students overreact to their writing skills, it’s often laughable). I don’t even read these papers, I just mark them as average, since trying to prove anything would be a waste of time. As I tell them, those who have used chatgpt have “learned” to use AI, those who have done the work have learned to carry out research, to synthesize their ideas and to structure, articulate and present them.
One last thing. As far as innovation is concerned, AI can endlessly produce pieces that sound like Bach, but it took Bach to exist in the first place, and Glenn Gould to revolutionize the interpretation of his scores for this to be possible.
First of all, I understand your point of view. And I’ve been looking at artists being undervalued like your potential client for decades, before AI was even a thing. So I definitely feel you on that point, and I wish it would be different. That said, here’s my response. (It’s a bit long, so I put it in spoiler tags)
I told him he wasn’t looking for a composer, but rather a programmer or something
spoiler
Yes, but maybe also no. Do you use computer software to compose or assist you in composing? Like FL Studio, Audacity? Or maybe you use a microphone to record the played version of your composition?
I know maybe one or two composers, and they wouldn’t go without that while I worked with them. But I’m sure you can agree using those things does not make you a programmer. It just takes a composer with a more technical mindset and experience with those tools. I don’t deny there are composers that do without it, and maybe you are one of them. If so, rock on, but I’m sure you can see using computer tools does not stop you from being a composer, it just enhances it. Now if you were to never learn anything about composing and just use AI blindly, then I would agree with you.
But AI in that manner is no different, and like those other pieces of software it still requires expertise to make something actually good. However, judging from the manner your client spoke to you, I think the issue wasn’t that you weren’t making good music, it’s that you were making too expensive music for the value he wanted to derive from it. That’s sadly how the free market goes, and I agree that it has disproportionately screwed over artists because their work gets systematically undervalued. However, AI is not the cause of that, it merely made it more apparent, and it will not stop with the next thing after AI, unless we tackle it at the root cause by giving artists better protections that don’t end up empowering the same people that undervalue them, which is really quite nuanced to get right and the current system we have already makes it worse than it is. This is what I fight for instead.
_
I could also tell you about the written assignments that students hand in, and for which I can identify in less than 30 seconds which ones have been produced by AI (students overreact to their writing skills, it’s often laughable).
spoiler
Students are probably the worst example of this though. Because that’s basically what students are known for before AI was even a thing. The average student has no conception or feeling yet of what has artistic value or not, and most will not go into creative fields. Students used to hand in fully plagiarized works they just downloaded or took from other students, and it is indeed laughable for anyone that actually wants to make it somewhere in their field. So yes, if that’s the majority of AI produced works you’ve encountered I can totally understand your point of view, but I implore you to broaden your horizon to people that actually work in the field. Those that already have built up the artistic mindset.
_
As I tell them, those who have used chatgpt have “learned” to use AI, those who have done the work have learned to carry out research, to synthesize their ideas and to structure, articulate and present them.
spoiler
But these people have not learned how to proficiently use AI, just very shallowly. They have learned how to be lazy. Which mind you, is the same laziness that you learn from plagiarizing directly. This has literally been the reality of people growing up for the entirety of human existence. You’re right that the ones that did go through the effort learned more, but that does not mean they could not also value from enhancing that process with other tools. And you wouldn’t even know the ones that did. Because they will not hand in something that looks like it came directly out of ChatGPT. They might have only used it for brainstorming, or proof reading, or to make a boring passage more entertaining. Someone who understands why their own effort and sense of ownership matters would never just hand in something they had zero say in, that’s what lazy people do. And we have no shortage of those.
A small subset of your students will go the extra mile, and realize that they need to get better themselves to produce things with more artistic value. They too will see what AI can help them with, and what it can’t. Some students that are lazy now will eventually see the light too, and realize that they’re lacking behind. That’s life - maturity takes time to develop.
But just because lazy people can play the guitar by randomly stroking the strings, doesn’t mean a competent guitar player can’t create an incredibly intricate banger with the same guitar. AI is no different.
_
One last thing. As far as innovation is concerned, AI can endlessly produce pieces that sound like Bach, but it took Bach to exist in the first place, and Glenn Gould to revolutionize the interpretation of his scores for this to be possible.
spoiler
You’re right that AI requires existing material. But you said it yourself. Glenn Gould would not be able to make his work without Bach. And just like that Bach has inspirations that would mean Bach as we know him would not exist without those. And if paper did not exist, Bach could not write down his pieces for us to remember now and learn from. In the same way, an artists of any kind in the future will not exist without their influences and tools, of which AI could be one.
AI can indeed produce endless pieces that sound like Bach, but only a human could use AI to produce a piece that has evokes feelings, passion, thoughts - anything to be considered to be real art. A machine cannot produce the true definition of art on it’s own, but it can be invoked by an artists to do work in furtherance of their art. Because it takes a creative mind to be able to spot, transform, extend, and also know when to discard, what an AI has produced. Just like we discard sources we perceive as low in value, and sources that are high in value we take as inspiration.
_
EDIT: Just want to add to this:
I have no interest in replacing this practice by entering prompts into an algorithm, even if I could make easy money from it.
That’s not something anyone should do. Because that’s not using it as a tool. That’s making it the entire process. That’s not the kind of AI usage I’m advocating for either. And you’re free to forego AI completely. Just like there are probably some instruments you never use, or some genre you never visit. I don’t like taking the easy way either, that’s why I make creative stuff as a living too. If I just wanted money I would go elsewhere too.
Do you think computers are making pictures for computers to look at with no human interaction?
Do you think I’m an idiot? See the my reply to the other comment if you care, I’m sure you do lol.
Yes. If you hate AI for those reason I think you’re an idiot. In fact if you hate ai art for any reason other than it’s content (and to be fair a lot of it is shite, but then a lot of stuff created by humans without computers is shite as well) you are wrong.
Lol, why don’t you go fuck yourself you stupid fuck? You haven’t even articulate half the beginning of an idea and yet you feel you can call others idiots? The other user in this comment has been able to explain why he doesn’t agrre whith me, meanwhile, you can only bark an insult like 12 years old bully without adressing any of the points I’m making. You’re a nuisance to the internet, why dont you go jerk to some ai porn and pretend to be smart on reddit?
Wow, that’s a response. You clearly know literally nothing about the subject at hand and are wilfully ignorant, so yes I will call you an idiot because it’s accurate. Maybe calm down and do some reading and thinking.
Lol. I don’t need advice from you, go fuck yourself. Bisous bisous
Garbage in; garbage out. Using AI tools is a skillset. I’ve had great use with LLMs and generative AI both, you just have to use the tools to their strengths.
LLMs are language models. People run into issues when they try to use them for things not language related. Conversely, it’s wonderful for other tasks. I use it to tone check things I’m unsure about. Or feed it ideas and let it run with them in ways I don’t think to. It doesn’t come up with too much groundbreaking or new on its own, but I think of it as kinda a “shuffle” button, taking what I have already largely put together, and messing around with it til it becomes something new.
Generative AI isn’t going to make you the next mona Lisa, but it can make some pretty good art. It, once again, requires a human to work with it, though. You can’t just tell it to spit out an image and expect 100% quality, 100% of the time. Instead, it’s useful to get a basic idea of what you want in place, then take it to another proper photo editor, or inpainting, or some other kind of post processing to refine it. I have some degree of aphantasia - I have a hard time forming and holding detailed mental images. This kind of AI approaches art in a way that finally kinda makes sense for my brain, so it’s frustrating seeing it shot down by people who don’t actually understand it.
I think no one likes any new fad that’s shoved down their throats. AI doesn’t belong in everything. We already have a million chocolate chip cookie recipes, and chatgpt doesn’t have taste buds. Stop using this stuff for tasks it wasn’t meant for (unless it’s a novelty “because we could” kind of way) and it becomes a lot more palatable.
This kind of AI approaches art in a way that finally kinda makes sense for my brain, so it’s frustrating seeing it shot down by people who don’t actually understand it. Stop using this stuff for tasks it wasn’t meant for (unless it’s a novelty “because we could” kind of way) and it becomes a lot more palatable.
Preach! I’m surprised to hear it works for people with aphantasia too, and that’s awesome. I personally have a very vivid mind’s eye and I can often already imagine what I want something to look like, but could never put it to paper in a satisfying way that didn’t cost excruciating amount of time. GenAI allows me to do that with still a decent amount of touch up work, but in a much more reasonable timeframe. I’m making more creative work than I’ve ever been because of it.
It’s crazy to me that some people at times completely refuse to even acknowledge such positives about the technology, refuse to interact with it in a way that would reveal those positives, refuse to look at more nuanced opinions of people that did interact with it, refuse even simple facts about how we learn and interact with other art and material, refusing legal realities like the freedom to analyze that allow this technology to exist (sometimes even actively fighting to restrict those legal freedoms, which would hurt more artists and creatives than it would help, and give even more more power to corporations and those with enough capital to self sustain AI model creation).
It’s tiring, but luckily it seems to be mostly an issue on the internet. Talking to people (including artists) in real life about it shows that it’s a very tiny fraction that holds that opinion. Keep creating 👍
So I’m really bad about remembering to add comments to my code, but since I started using githubs ai code assistant thing in vs code, it will make contextual suggestions when you comment out a line. I’ve even gone back to stuff I made ages ago, and used it to figure out what the hell I was thinking when I wrote it back then 😆
It’s actually really helpful.
I feel like once the tech adoption curve settles down, it will be most useful in cases like that: contextual analysis
If you specifically mean LLM/GenAI:
- Some of my friends enjoy fucking around with those character AIs. I never got the appeal, even as an RP nerd, RPing is a social activity to me, and computers aren’t people
- I have seen funny memes be made with Image Generators – And tbqh as long as you’re not pretending that being an AI prompter makes you an “artist”, by all means go crazy with generating AI images for your furry porn/DnD campaign/whatever
- https://goblin.tools/ is a cool little thing for people as intensely autistic as I am, and it runs off AI stuff.
- Voice Recognition/Dictation technology powered by AI is a lot better than its pre-AI sibling. I’ve been giving it a shot lately. It helps my arthritis-ridden hands.
If you mean anything that utilizes machine learning (“AI” is a buzzword), then “AI” technology has been used to help scientists and doctors do their jobs better since the mid 90s
Goblin.tools was pretty neat
Thanks for the goblin tools link, that site looks really helpful for breaking down big tasks into small steps!
There’s a handful of actual good use-cases. For example, Spotify has a new playlist generator that’s actually pretty good. You give it a bunch of terms and it creates a playlist of songs from those terms. It’s just crunching a bunch of data to analyze similarities with words. That’s what it’s made for.
It’s not intelligence. It’s a data crunching tool to find correlations. Anyone treating it like intelligence will create nothing more than garbage.
A friend’s wife “makes” and sells AI slop prints. He had to make a twitter account so he could help her deal with the “harassment”. Not sure exactly what she’s dealing with, but my friend and I have slightly different ideas of what harassment is and I’m not interested in hearing more about the situation. The prints I’ve seen look like generic fantasy novel art that you’d see at the checkout line of a grocery store.
People I talk to find it useful for front-end development
To me AI is useless. Its not intelligent, its just a blender that blends up tons of results into one hot steaming mug of “knowledge”. If you toss a nugget of shit into a smoothie while it’s being blended, it’s gonna taste like shit. Considering the amount of misinformation on the internet, everything AI spits out is shit.
It is purely derivative, devoid of any true originality with vague facade of intelligence in an attempt to bypass existing copyright law.
Intelligence is defined as the ability to acquire, understand and use knowledge. Self-driving cars, for example, are intelligent and they run by AI too.
Your last line pretty much sums up my feelings entirely.
That thought process would say patent law was incorrect though right? If you break something down to parts and say, well all those parts exist on their own, you just reordered them so you never created anything new. A fun case people refer to was against Ford I believe, when they tried to steal the intermittent windshield wiper idea from someone by claiming that resistors already existed, it was just placed elsewhere, so he couldn’t claim it as a new invention. Ford lost and had to pay to use the idea.
I see it as the same premise. All programming and language breaks down to words that already exist, so either rearranging them and using them in a new manner is a new work, or none of it is. Thereby saying all books, music, and code wouldn’t be able to have copyrights or patents. Which I believe that would cause a bit of chaos.
Erotic Roleplay. You’re welcome?
Chatgpt is decidedly unerotic in its responses.
Llama 3.1 Sao10K Hanami. Youre welcome.
What I was fishing for. Thanks.
It’s funny you mention this, but the erotic roleplay aspect of llms is a thriving business generating millions of dollars every month now in subscription costs.
We’ve barely even scratching the surface of what these models can do and they’re increasing in usage at an exponential rate.
I have had fun with ChatGPT, but in terms of integrating it into my workflow: no. It just gives me too much garbage on a regular basis for me not to have to check and recheck anything it produces, so it’s more efficient to do it myself.
And as entertainment, it’s more expensive than e.g. a game, over time.
Personally I use it when I can’t easily find an answer online. I still keep some skepticism about the answers given until I find other sources to corroborate, but in a pinch it works well.
because of the way it’s trained on internet data, large models like ChatGPT can actually work pretty well as a sort of first-line search engine. My girlfriend uses it like that all the time especially for obscure stuff in one of her legal classes, it can bring up the right details to point you towards googling the correct document rather than muddling through really shitty library case page searches.
especially when you use something with inline citations like bing
