zlacker

>>dredmo+(OP)
Does anybody else find the whole AI art generation thing both amazing and incredibly depressing at the same time? I’ve played around with it and it’s lots of fun. But I can also see a deluge of mediocre “content” taking over the internet in the near future. “Real art” will become a niche underground discipline. Most popular music will be AI generated and will have fake performers also generated to go along with it. And most people will be fine with that.

I don’t think “real art” will disappear. People will always want to create (although monetising that will now be exceedingly more difficult).

It feels like we are ripping the humanity out of life on a greater and greater scale with tech. Instead of replacing crappy jobs and freeing up peoples time to enjoy their life, we’re actually automating enjoyable pursuits.

NB: when I’m referring to art I mean of all types as that’s where we are heading.

>>spikea+w5
But also, the explosion in interest means there had been a latent interest in instantly generating pictures to begin with.

I think this situation says a lot about the nature of human desire, not just the fact that a few people were ingenious to come up with the idea of diffusion models. A lot of ingenious inventions are relatively boring when exposed to the broader populace, and don't hit on such an appealing latent desire.

What will this say about the limitless yet-to-be-invented ideas that humanity is just raring to give itself, if only someone would hit on the correct chain of breakthroughs? Would even a single person today be interested in building a backyard nuclear warhead in an afternoon, and would attempt to if the barrier of difficulty in doing so was solved?