|
Yuli Ban posted:Anyone following news on the front of generative adversarial networks? What they're doing these days is insane. Watching them in action is the first time that I've felt jobs are at risk. I could imagine the possibility and talk of how future AI and robotics will lead to such an age, but until I discovered GANs, I never really had an idea for how it would happen. And the craziest thing is that, despite all the reassurances we've been giving ourselves about how robots will only do the jobs we don't want to and that the future will be filled with artists, it's the creative jobs that might be going away first. Edit: Never mind. F_Shit_Fitzgerald fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Dec 21, 2017 |
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:09 |
|
|
GANs are indeed extremely cool, but I think you're (understandably) over-estimating how much they can do. The horse to zebra transform is a good example: these AIs do not "understand" a horse as a "a work animal with a mane and etc etc", they "understand" a horse as, essentially, an average over the thousands of examples presented to the GAN with a label of 00000100000 instead of 00001000000 (this one's a zebra). Now clearly that is still an incredibly powerful thing to "understand" and allows us to take the average of "zebra" and combine it with the average of "horse", but it does not imply that the GAN "knows" how to make a horse/zebra walk like humans can easily imagine. Now we could design a neural net to learn how to do that, but the only way we know how to do that today requires thousands and thousands of labelled data sets of horses walking before we could even begin to create that model. Neural networks need to have nuanced semantic understanding and ability to generalize to really be able to help create content in the way you're describing. That's an extremely difficult task that I don't know we'll solve by the 20s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Yuli Ban posted:Anyone following news on the front of generative adversarial networks? What they're doing these days is insane. Watching them in action is the first time that I've felt jobs are at risk. I could imagine the possibility and talk of how future AI and robotics will lead to such an age, but until I discovered GANs, I never really had an idea for how it would happen. And the craziest thing is that, despite all the reassurances we've been giving ourselves about how robots will only do the jobs we don't want to and that the future will be filled with artists, it's the creative jobs that might be going away first. This is a great post. I wish this forum had a "save as pdf" option.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:I mean, people complain that we have 10 different TV shows about the end of the world, but 0 shows about the end of Capitalism. I can imagine what the end of the world would look like, but I can't imagine what the end of Capitalism would look like. I don't think anyone really can, outside of some broad, vague ideas. 1: Of course we don't have any shows discussing the end of capitalism. You think the corporations behind these shows are interested in such a topic? You have to think of them in the same way you'd think of the Medici family financing the Renaissance— they'll only finance what they like. While they may tolerate a broad range of topics, they still have limits, and you wouldn't get the Medici to finance you painting a picture of a mob killing them and burning their estates the same way you wouldn't get a large American corporation to finance a story about people smashing the very foundation of how they make their money. 2: I don't think it's that hard, but I did spend about 5 years imagining a story set after a communist revolution in the early 22nd century, so I had to eventually get around to figuring out how things would work. And the guiding principle in that is "If it exists, we'll break it." This is why utopias always fail. They're only utopias when they lack humans, which defeats the purpose of them being utopias. You've got to imagine a scenario that seems ideal or horrible, then place actual people into that scenario knowing that they're invariably screw it up due to greed, self-centeredness, ignorance, stubbornness, passion, mental illness, or good old fashioned stupidity. 3: I'm sure people living in a feudal society couldn't imagine what the end of feudalism would have looked like. The idea that those town merchants would eventually rule over them and become far richer than any king would've sounded ludicrous, just as would most of the consequences of such a new world arising. They also would have possibly thought that a post-feudal world would have been utopian compared to their current condition. That said, feudalism shares many traits with capitalism and vice versa, so that may represent another problem— when we try imagining the end of capitalism, we're trying to imagine an existence so alien to anything we know that we set ourselves up to fail. In reality, you should look at those small instances in time where capitalism had been driven back and some post-capitalist existence (usually anarchism) was thriving before the old order eventually rushed back in, one way or another. Another thing I've noticed is that communists are too caught up in dogma. I've heard time and time again that the proletariat has no nationality, that the proletariat needs only one party, that the proletariat will want what's in their own class's interest. But like I said, whenever I bring in actual human emotions and primate behaviors into this, it all collapses. The proletariat may not have a nationality, but we sure like the place we live in more than a place we've never known. The proletariat may only need one party, but there seems to be a new party for every socialist. The class interest part, I can understand, because we all just want more money and control. But if you reformed socialism so that it does reflect this while trying to redirect it, you wouldn't have that problem. Maybe humans aren't ready to abandon tribalism just yet because we can't deprogram several million years of evolution in one sweeping revolution unless that revolution can augment the brain directly. Maybe socialist countries could have more than one socialist party on the ballot— rather than The Party or dealing with two capitalist parties with maybe two that pay some occasional lip service to progressive causes, why not four socialist parties that all deal with some aspect of what the proletariat wants? Some might want more government; others might want less. One group might not be satisfied with the way things are going while the others think things should take a different turn. Maybe one large group wants direct control period with your earnings being what you produce, while another believes in universal basic income. And I can keep going and going; these differences don't just disappear behind the walls of revolution, and that may be another big reason why we "can't" imagine the end of capitalism— we keep returning to the same poo poo from before without reflecting on what if we did things differently. Multiple political parties isn't a fundamental aspect of capitalism or any socioeconomic system but instead of democracy, something socialists and post-capitalists always seem to exalt but never seem to respect once in power precisely because "the proletariat only needs one party, comrade." Imagine a society of high automation, of open-sourced and free-sourced properties that can be acquired through 3D printing and fabrication, of helot-esque machines producing common goods for no one in particular, of small-scale direct democracy leading to larger-scale representational democracy, of commonly-owned machines producing houses for nearly free, and Wall Street is a hub of algorithms regulating the usage of resources. If you're not at home all the time, you might be living a neo-nomadic life. Maybe you're a personal artisan or someone who trolls others in public. Maybe you're trying to mass produce biobombs because you feel this high tech world, though equalized, is still immoral and that anarcho-primitivism is superior. Maybe you're trying to mass produce your own death troopers to take power but blockchain-based AIs see what you're doing and react. What sort of stories can you construct from such a world? Keep those stories coming, pushing this world to its limit until at least one thing breaks, and then see how the world reacts. Yuli Ban fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Dec 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
muon posted:GANs are indeed extremely cool, but I think you're (understandably) over-estimating how much they can do. The horse to zebra transform is a good example: these AIs do not "understand" a horse as a "a work animal with a mane and etc etc", they "understand" a horse as, essentially, an average over the thousands of examples presented to the GAN with a label of 00000100000 instead of 00001000000 (this one's a zebra). I mentioned this myself, that in the 20s, these algorithms will most assuredly generate increasingly amazing content but they will not understand said content and it's up to you to make sense of it all. To use the comic example again, I could get the algorithm to generate a person in the style of Jack Kirby; first they have to consume thousands of picture of a person and then thousands of works from Kirby, and then eventually it'll understand how to warp the dimensions of a real human to fit a more stylized version, all to create "Dr. Minsky". I could get the algorithm to make this synthetic comic book Minsky take a variety of poses that I feed into it, or maybe alter his hair color or his wardrobe based on text inputs. I can add speech bubbles (I mean, I could do that really), and then I could create another person in the same manner. GANs will be able to do this by the early 2020s. It seems like a long-stretch, but there's a reason why I'm calling it— mostly due to the fact an actual machine learning expert whose pulse is firmly on the field is saying that what's being done in the labs is about right for the course, and he's still conservative about these things. They won't be able to actually generate a full comic, start to finish, that makes sense. It's up to me to put every panel in order and fill in the text boxes. It's up to me to decide which panel works and which one doesn't. It's up to me to make the story, the reason why these characters are made in the first place. Sort of as if you have fully automated production of paper, but it's up to you to turn it into a book and sell it. It's true when you say that GANs are limited and will still have limits. I'm just saying that we'll still be able to do amazing things within the confines of these limits. It's not going to be until the 2030s, at the absolute earliest, that we'll start seeing truly creative AI in any real way. I'd love to be wrong, but that's the way I'm seeing it at the moment. Yuli Ban fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Dec 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
muon posted:but it does not imply that the GAN "knows" how to make a horse/zebra walk like humans can easily imagine. Now we could design a neural net to learn how to do that, but **the only way we know how to do that today requires thousands and thousands of labelled data sets of horses walking** before we could even begin to create that model. Neural networks need to have nuanced semantic understanding and ability to generalize to really be able to help create content in the way you're describing. That's an extremely difficult task that I don't know we'll solve by the 20s. While I essentially agree with the notion that GANs aren't quite self-redeeming and an end-all and there's obviously a ton of stuff to do but specifically the bolded part is actually one of the things GANs are meant to (and already succeed to to some degree) eliminate; meticulously specific hand crafted labels based on not just our understanding of the data but also thorough reprocessing of it all to convey that information with some degree of explicitness. The idea behind GANs is that if you wanted to teach a GAN how horses walk, you'd just throw a massive pile of unlabelled footage that has some kinda horse somewhere walking and the "game" between the two neural nets that make the structure is that the generative part tries to come up with fake footage of walking horses and the other one is learning to distinguish the fakes from the originals, so the first one learns things like euclidean geometry and eventually horse mechanics and horse biology because the other one gives it the feedback (in less explicit terms) that "no, this caterpillar thing that moves by shifting it's volume through space like an amoeba definitely isn't a horse and this sample is a bad fake". GANs ideally don't need labelled data (although it can help) and that's part of what makes them so incredibly powerful; sometimes they work excellently even in cases where we can't be arsed to get the labels done or we literally don't have the explicit understanding of the task at hand to come up with labels.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Yuli Ban posted:I mentioned this myself, that in the 20s, these algorithms will most assuredly generate increasingly amazing content but they will not understand said content and it's up to you to make sense of it all. While I agree it's a fool's bet, I feel like assigning decades to this kinda advance is meaningless considering how much of an insane leap have we made since 2000. You never know when somebody gonna come up with a trick that will allow them to feed the whole Wikipedia through a nvidia Titan X and get "Hello, I'm God, I'm here to save you from yourselves." on the console prompt. "Machine learning relies on huge amount of data with labels for everything, always, a LOT of them." was a borderline axiomatic, heck, five years ago, and look where are we now. Teal fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Dec 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
muon posted:GANs are indeed extremely cool, but I think you're (understandably) over-estimating how much they can do. The horse to zebra transform is a good example: these AIs do not "understand" a horse as a "a work animal with a mane and etc etc", they "understand" a horse as, essentially, an average over the thousands of examples presented to the GAN with a label of 00000100000 instead of 00001000000 (this one's a zebra). Now clearly that is still an incredibly powerful thing to "understand" and allows us to take the average of "zebra" and combine it with the average of "horse", but it does not imply that the GAN "knows" how to make a horse/zebra walk like humans can easily imagine. Now we could design a neural net to learn how to do that, but the only way we know how to do that today requires thousands and thousands of labelled data sets of horses walking before we could even begin to create that model. Neural networks need to have nuanced semantic understanding and ability to generalize to really be able to help create content in the way you're describing. That's an extremely difficult task that I don't know we'll solve by the 20s. Also if a guy is in a room with a bunch of how to answer Chinese questions flowchart books and answers Chinese questions does anyone really understand Chinese etc etc etc
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Also if a guy is in a room with a bunch of how to answer Chinese questions flowchart books and answers Chinese questions does anyone really understand Chinese etc etc etc Only because "people need to write some non-dystopic fiction" was mentioned recently, I will use this opportunity to plug blindsight (you can legally read the whole Peter Watts' 2006 novel in the link, he released it for free), which is an incredibly puzzling and elaborate scifi exploration of possible inhuman intelligence (even though the artificial one isn't focus, although present and relevant). Chinese room is a very relevant concept through it, and while it's rather drastic and bleak, it's still a future I'd actually like to exist in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Teal posted:Only because "people need to write some non-dystopic fiction" was mentioned recently, I will use this opportunity to plug blindsight (you can legally read the whole Peter Watts' 2006 novel in the link, he released it for free), which is an incredibly puzzling and elaborate scifi exploration of possible inhuman intelligence (even though the artificial one isn't focus, although present and relevant). Chinese room is a very relevant concept through it, and while it's rather drastic and bleak, it's still a future I'd actually like to exist in. Reading the title and trying to think of which book that is I thought maybe it was either WWW:Wake which is about the internet coming alive after china seals off it's section of the internet and the perspective of having two individuals is what sparks a thoughtless computer into having a sense of self (and then a blind little girl who gets bionic eyes that don't work but let her see the flow of the internet and that does something else I can't remember because I read this book like 12 years ago). OR That it was some short story that I can't remember the name of about a blind man being a world class super genius and science realizing that his brain had rewired to use his visual contrex for problem solving and science figures out a technique to do that repeatably so people end up having to remove their kid's eyes because no amount of study will ever make you as good as an eyeless genius. Until it spreads to nearly any skilled labor and only unskilled laborers have eyes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:That it was some short story that I can't remember the name of about a blind man being a world class super genius and science realizing that his brain had rewired to use his visual contrex for problem solving and science figures out a technique to do that repeatably so people end up having to remove their kid's eyes because no amount of study will ever make you as good as an eyeless genius. Until it spreads to nearly any skilled labor and only unskilled laborers have eyes. This is awesome and kind of reminds me of beggars in spain. The sleepless are immediately rejected by society as a whole and it deals more with persecution and whatever other weirdness, but they are smarter and happier than everyone else as a side affect of not having to sleep. I haven't read them in a while.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:This is awesome and kind of reminds me of beggars in spain. The sleepless are immediately rejected by society as a whole and it deals more with persecution and whatever other weirdness, but they are smarter and happier than everyone else as a side affect of not having to sleep. I haven't read them in a while. I have no idea what that book was or when I read it and searching for it seems impossible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
Xae posted:Because as long as someone is has something someone else wants and is willing to trade for it Capitalism will exist in some form. That's not capitalism. See Mark Blyth re: capitalism and how it required the state to create markets in order for it to exist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrpD_yMBC8E
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Reading the title and trying to think of which book that is I thought maybe it was either It's actually named after the neurological phenomenon called "blindsight" which occurs exactly once in the story but is rather aptly indicative of the wild nihilistic soul brutalizing ride the book takes you on. After I finished it I started having a bit of depressive episodes. I really don't recommend it to people who have confirmed psychological dissociation problems or general nihilism/existential dread issues.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 09:37
|
|
|
Small victory of the day: EU court ruled that Uber is a taxi service and needs to comply with the law, just like every other taxi service. Decision final, applies EU wide
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 12:12
|
|
|
 I cannot loving handle this Teal fucked around with this message at 12:39 on Dec 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
Middle class white people only - Positive Conservative Vision. The guy at the bottom is straight out of PPE in PPE.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 12:43
|
|
|
Tei posted:This is a great post. I wish this forum had a "save as pdf" option. Use your browser to print to a pdf file. google 'print to pdf'
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
Teal posted:
I don't get it. What is it trying to say? Is this a schizophrenia thing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
Don't think too hard about it- they're trying to say that leftist policies inevitably lead to broken economies and replacement by automation and conservative policies will create heaven on earth. The picture doesn't contain anything actually backing up its statement, but likely there are some pretty crazy arguments hiding inside that little booklet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 13:39
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:I don't get it. What is it trying to say? Is this a schizophrenia thing? It's a right wing blog is trying to imply that the UK Labour Party (lefties) has this overly pessimistic, negative view of the future involving automation, whereas the UK Conservative Party can lead us to this shining vision of perfect future where everyone drives Smart cars on fields and meets up robots while wearing VR goggles for no apparent reason. It's basically like, a really vulgar, cheap satire of the two sides of the argument in this thread, except meant seriously and specifically lampooning one side, tied to a particular political party.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:That's not capitalism. Whatever point he is trying make is so muddled it is completely incoherent. He doesn't seem to be able to separate the idea of "government support helps capitalism" with "government support is required for capitalism". Which is transparently bullshit if you look at black markets. Even in his Sweden vs Somalia example he completely undermines his own point. Private businesses seeking profit exist in Somalia. They're less successful than ones in Sweden, but they do exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Xae posted:Whatever point he is trying make is so muddled it is completely incoherent. Look at Mexico and Russia, black markets can become the government. Anyone who uses violence strategically is competition for the government in power. Somalia doesn't have one government but hundreds of warlords that I'm guessing extract payments from those businesses in exchange for protection.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
I don't think we can't talk about Capitalism dead, because... apparently is a religion? Some people have this idea that Capitalism is a absolute and will be reinvented again and again every time somebody need something and other person have a surplus. Which is useless. Because we don't care if *technically* capitalism still exist among gangs of survivors running around skyscrapers in ruins while robots are hunting them for sport. Because at that point, I clean my rear end hole with your technicalities. The moment the 1% have virtually all the wealth of the world, the 99% owns nothing and are unemployed, that is not a capitalism system. Is more a farm where the 1% have the rest of the human population has pets. The 1% will control and feed the other 99%. The 99% will not have anything to offer that the 1% don't already own. Is not even comparable to parts of human story where most human population where slaves or virtually slaves. A slave master still need you. We have talked about this before and some people is always at a brink to understand this, and then bounce on the surface "But.. the system you describe don't work!, why would factories craft cars when nobody can buy these cars". That is exactly the point. We can see the end of capitalism, very clearly, just following the current evolution of capitalism and societies. Towards a system that just don't flat work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Tei posted:I don't think we can't talk about Capitalism dead, because... apparently is a religion? In some cases they have denominations, canons and even proverbs. Yes basically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Tei posted:The moment the 1% have virtually all the wealth of the world, the 99% owns nothing and are unemployed, that is not a capitalism system. Is more a farm where the 1% have the rest of the human population has pets. The 1% will control and feed the other 99%. The 99% will not have anything to offer that the 1% don't already own. Conversations about "the 1%" on a global scale are weird. Like on income the bar for top 1% is like $30,000 a year. Which isn't really mr money bags rich in a first world country but is still far beyond most of the world. Like the easy retreat is to say "I didn't mean 1%, I meant .01%, I meant .001%, the 1% is okay" and there is a level of merit to it, inequality is bad and has gotten worse in a lot of ways recently and a few people are really really extreme and that seems bad. But inequality is like a weird big problem. We are already in the nightmare future where the first world is better off than the third world. And it's hard to set up boundaries for morals on that. Like it's hard to be like "actually it's good how it is, but if the 1% became the .8% it'd be suddenly hell, it might include me this time!", but it's also weird to say "actually right now is hell world and everything is terrible and nothing is good right now!". Like it's bad if first world countries turn into third world countries, but I say that as someone in a first world country. I imagine some people in third world countries think that sounds plenty fair. Everyone on earth living in a first world country definitely sounds good. Like hopefully we do that. But like the horror future where most people live in less wealthy countries and some people live in vastly more rich countries is the horror present. Some of the less rich countries are pretty okay, some are definitely not okay. I don't know really whats right. I want to live in the first world and don't want things to change to make me not, but neither does anyone else I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Imagine our current society, but 99% of people has never been empoyeed, and police is much more efficient.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Plenty of the people in the third world don't want the first world to "also become third world" probably because it means their families and their own countries even have less hope for success via export-oriented industrialization, in essence, they become even more trapped.
Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Dec 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Xae posted:Whatever point he is trying make is so muddled it is completely incoherent. The only muddled thing in there is the off-hand equation of markets with capitalism. People have been exchanging and doing business in various forms certainly since the first (very non-capitalist) states were erected, and arguably before. But capitalism is a specific set of notions about how governments, trade, and people should intersect, or less prescriptively, do intersect under liberal property regimes. A working class requires enclosure of the commons, corporations require legal foundations, big businesses in general require the myriad internal improvements necessary to create a national market, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
In the spirit of that good effort post about GANs, here is an older paper with a workflow demonstration of how future content creation could look like. The paper is old as gently caress(2016), so the quality of generated imagery is probably a lot higher now Semantic Style Transfer and Turning Two-Bit Doodles into Fine Artwork  Skills required? Absolutely loving zero
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Ormi posted:The only muddled thing in there is the off-hand equation of markets with capitalism. People have been exchanging and doing business in various forms certainly since the first (very non-capitalist) states were erected, and arguably before. But capitalism is a specific set of notions about how governments, trade, and people should intersect, or less prescriptively, do intersect under liberal property regimes. A working class requires enclosure of the commons, corporations require legal foundations, big businesses in general require the myriad internal improvements necessary to create a national market, and so on. People seem to be constantly shifting the goalposts of what defines capitalism to meet their ideology of "Capitalism is bad". It has shifted from trying to "profit from capital instead of labor" to "uses markets" now to "has a complex financial sector and large corporations" in the last couple of pages alone. Even under all of those things Capitalism existed long before the term did. You can find bronze age records about financial dealings, interest regulation, etc a long time before people even had a concept of economics. Xae fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Dec 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Capitalism at least to me, it more than the existence of markets, but a particular relationship that developed during industrialization. Also, there are in fact different types of capitalism that need to be put into context. Neoliberalism (for example) did not in fact always exist but was largely the result of the post-war environment. Also, there is the broader debate of "state capitalism" versus "state socialism" in the Soviet Union (and other Marxist-Leninist states). That said, in my belief, I honestly don't know if the Soviet Union, in particular, could have developed differently than it did (this is from someone who has been crawling through Soviet archival statistics). Honestly, I have a hard time seeing markets themselves going away (even if they become black markets), but the particular structure of neoliberalism may not be sustainable. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Dec 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Capitalism at least to me, it more than the existence of markets, but a particular relationship that developed during industrialization. Also, there are in fact different types of capitalism that need to be put into context. Part of the problem is that we're trying to force academic terms onto the real world. Right now there are thriving black markets in North Korea, probably the least capitalist state. In so far as its internal economy. But I also just shopped at an employee owned grocery store right in the beating heart of 'MURICAN capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Plenty of the people in the third world don't want the first world to "also become third world" probably because it means their families and their own countries even have less hope for success via export-oriented industrialization, in essence, they become even more trapped. Yeah, inequality is complex. It's really hard to rank various "everything is equally bad" vs "some people have it bad and some people have it good" and it's hard to talk about future outcomes without deciding if the guy making 30,000 (the top 1%) making 18,000 a year (still twice the world average) in the future but the third world is making more too is good or bad or what. like stuff is already so hosed up the actual right things to do seem horrifying because we are generally the elites already, but don't think of ourselves that way because everyone else we know is too. And a lot of us are struggling too. And the only not grim as gently caress answer is just "make everyone on earth rich" which is I guess the techno utopia of robots and AIs that can do everything for us I guess?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:
That's kind of depressing, really. I know a fair amount of people who used their creativity to lever themselves to a better life, usually through writing or art. Some of them just make a few hundred dollars a month, but if you're grinding along in this economy, a few hundred bucks a month can make a real difference. Good luck making a buck through writing when AI authors take off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:In the spirit of that good effort post about GANs, here is an older paper with a workflow demonstration of how future content creation could look like. The paper is old as gently caress(2016), so the quality of generated imagery is probably a lot higher now Decisions like "how big this pond should be" and "where this tree should be" are important artistic decisions. The AI just handles the tedious brushwork. Soon we will all be able to create majestic works together with AI partners.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:That's kind of depressing, really. I know a fair amount of people who used their creativity to lever themselves to a better life, usually through writing or art. Some of them just make a few hundred dollars a month, but if you're grinding along in this economy, a few hundred bucks a month can make a real difference. And it's true, the call for certain types of artists dried up, you don't see portrait booths at high end markets any more, but there was an explosion of new types of art, and like the post above said, knowing how to compose a piece is more important than the exact tools.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:That's kind of depressing, really. I know a fair amount of people who used their creativity to lever themselves to a better life, usually through writing or art. Some of them just make a few hundred dollars a month, but if you're grinding along in this economy, a few hundred bucks a month can make a real difference. After the AI creatives take off there will still be a decent period where human skill in utilizing AI for human consumption will still be advantageous. So someone who might have been limited to a canvas of a few meters by their own hand could utilize AI compatriots to design landscapes kilometers in size. The author that tweaks the Young-Adult-Fic-Bot2.4 into the true "Neverending Story" will have an advantage over an uncurated AI. Eventually the window will close but in the meanwhile there will be a niche for human curated AIs in these creative fields.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah, inequality is complex. It's really hard to rank various "everything is equally bad" vs "some people have it bad and some people have it good" and it's hard to talk about future outcomes without deciding if the guy making 30,000 (the top 1%) making 18,000 a year (still twice the world average) in the future but the third world is making more too is good or bad or what. My point of view is certainly not popular but I'm all for abolishing states in general. I also think the best approach is to build systems that take care of people's well being first and foremost. Whether that means the 1% own everything or not I don't think it really matters, inequality doesn't matter in any meaningful way if people don't have to work to have their needs met. Certainly there should be discussion and lots of laws and poo poo about improving that for people but I'd be happy to worry about that when everyone is fed and housed. Instead we just go back and forth arguing about how much wealth and mobility an individual can achieve meanwhile we ignore the basics as if we can't possibly afford it today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 09:09 |
|
|
The horrible dystopian future anyone can have the tools to create art and it no longer costs money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 23:16
|
|