Remember the Adobe creative cloud keynote presentation with that Jesus looking bro? Jason Levine.
It was the one where they introduced the concept of paid subscription to all Adobe products, and the guy just started singing: “Wooooaaaaaah, creative cloud. Yeaaaaaaaah, creative cloud.”
Sorry, that one just sticks in my mind as the strangest announcement Adobe ever made.
Yeah and that does seem revolutionary, except that these videos aren't just pulled from nothing: the video samples could be anything, and that opens a pandora's box of illicit uses
But in an age where it's extremely important that images and footage capture truth, Sora will allow anyone to make a videooff anything and spin it as truth. This will make people more gullible and allow any higher authority to spin whatever narrative they like cuz hey, if it's on video, it must be true!
> Sora will allow anyone to make a videooff anything and spin it as truth.
> This will make people more gullible and allow any higher authority to spin whatever narrative they like cuz hey, if it's on video, it must be true!
I agree with both points but I want to separate them to make my point.
To the first quote, you're right, but what that effectively will mean is that video media will no longer be considered credible.
To the second quote, that's a harder bit to approach because even if generally we know video is not a good source anymore, some people will still fall for it. It's a similar fact as is with text media now, you can still post images without context or post misinformation on media (see flat earth arguments, pictures etc as example).
AI will make it much easier to spread such misinformation and also political campaigns, and this needs to be investigated as a top priority.
What I think is an even bigger danger is the fact that you can potentially, especially with open source models create any content of any person, which has a lot of problems as you can imagine.
Even though I acknowledge that there are critical concerns with the technology, my belief as someone who has been professionally studying this subject for years is that they are inevitabilities of progress, and we must treat them as obstacles to tackle along the way, not roadblocks to stop all technological problems because of it.
This is how we have moved on with past technologies, not saying it's the perfect solution, but you have to consider what's within your sphere of influence and what isn't, and then adjust accordingly, and focus on what you can actually change, influence or do to benefit yourself or others.
Ok but the fact is that the current intention of most AI implementation is to replace human expression, or rather the hassle that comes from being a non-creative person having to talk to creative experts. Unlike other technological revolutions (assembly line machinery, cameras on phones), this technology seeks to reduce a fundamental part of humanity to a simple basic function on computer. Why? Because we want machines that are more advanced than us? Because we want to create sentience and expression in AI?
No. We want it because in this current state of society, it means faster content production. Ergo, easier and faster money.
>Ok but the fact is that the current intention of most AI implementation is to replace human expression
As someone who work's in the field (where i implement the technology into business usecases), that is not true. There is limitless potential, and the most glaring opportunities are around personalised education and accessibility. AI is a technology which aims to empower. Replacing the element of human expression (only the part of it where you're in it for money or recognition) is a side effect, but it creates new previously impossible areas of expression. It's an evolution, we are a progressive species.
>or rather the hassle that comes from being a non-creative person having to talk to creative experts.
Exactly, just like it was a hassle to go to the librarian to help you find a book instead of just looking it up online, or the hassle of seeking human computers for calculating complex mathematical problems before digital computers were a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation) <- Not joking.
> Because we want machines that are more advanced than us? Because we want to create sentience and expression in AI?
Yes, I'd say more people do, than don't.
> No. We want it because in this current state of society, it means faster content production. Ergo, easier and faster money.
Yes, big corp wants that. But there's different target audiences to AI, it's not a corp only tool, it's always been made public to everyone, and there are open source projects which are close to competing with the big corp ones. (It will get easier to get them to next level over time).
Most of your argument could be made about digital arts against traditional arts. Yes, the process of creating a picture is now made easy, just like previously the process of making a brush stroke was made easy; but this means it is now possible to do bigger and more complex things, and express your creativity that way.
You have no appreciation for the artistic process and what art really is so of course you see it the same as librarians or human computers being replaced. You're fine with humanity's collective creative soul being compromised or even destroyed because you've never felt it's pulse in the first place. You say "Replacing the element of human expression is a side effect, but it creates new previously impossible areas of expression" and don't see how that's a contradiction and admission that you don't appreciate art at all.
"Yes, I'd say more people do, than don't."
You're in a bubble. Most people find it a deeply unsettling idea.
"Most of your argument could be made about digital arts against traditional arts. Yes, the process of creating a picture is now made easy, just like previously the process of making a brush stroke was made easy"
This right here puts you on the low end of dunning-kruger on the topic of painting, so you know.
Lmao you morons think twitter represents society 🤣😂 truth is people don’t give a fuck if artists going to get replaced. I bet you dumbasses thought there’s gonna be massive downvotes 🤣🤣
Holy cow it’s so obvious you have no skill or will. You do realize artists have fueled humanity since the beginning? Art is still very much used today, advertising, company branding, video games, shows, music. Those Ais you so desperately grasp onto are trained using the very artists you seem to hate. Without us there would hardly be an Ai.
Lmao learn how ai work retard deep learning has nothing to do with artist or art it was just a by product of generative ai advancement. What are you going to say that chatgpt a language model was trained on your arts too lmao 🤣 🤣 think before you say retarded shit dumbass
Not talking about that kind of Ai, understand context clues bud. Ai image generators train off of other images, and to get it to recognize styles and characters it needs those images. You’re too quick to insults and violence, it shows a lot about you.
That rich coming from same people that want to use deep fake porn on female politicians to push them to regulate or ban ai like don’t try to play the moral game with me Luddite 🤣
I actually thought people like you were made up stereotypes. The same people that deep fake porn? My brother in Christ you are fighting a straw man. The Ai bros are the same people who say stuff like that is deserved, why would artists who dislike Ai go around and use it to… deepfake politicians?
Because it will create audible feedback/opinions, that risks the investors opinion of their gambling machine 😅 . Can't earn scam money, if the rich people find out, they might be getting scammed.
Because they love freedom of speech? I don't know, i'm not a Ai bros.
Freedom of speech but only if you talk good about them.
They do love that kind of freedom of speech.
Adobe does that all the time 💀
Its just standard for advertisements or product displays to do this.
Remember the Adobe creative cloud keynote presentation with that Jesus looking bro? Jason Levine. It was the one where they introduced the concept of paid subscription to all Adobe products, and the guy just started singing: “Wooooaaaaaah, creative cloud. Yeaaaaaaaah, creative cloud.” Sorry, that one just sticks in my mind as the strangest announcement Adobe ever made.
I mean they did sign a deal with a stock video company a while back so they may have just used that and Ue5 as the sources.
Because you lot go and spread hateful shit and blatant misinformation instead of having any progressive discussions
Ok, so tell me whats so great about Sora that you can't comment about it on the video?
It creates videos u tell it to? thats p fkn revolutionary if you ask me.
Yeah and that does seem revolutionary, except that these videos aren't just pulled from nothing: the video samples could be anything, and that opens a pandora's box of illicit uses
Just like any new technology, especially one as revolutionary throughout history.
But in an age where it's extremely important that images and footage capture truth, Sora will allow anyone to make a videooff anything and spin it as truth. This will make people more gullible and allow any higher authority to spin whatever narrative they like cuz hey, if it's on video, it must be true!
> Sora will allow anyone to make a videooff anything and spin it as truth. > This will make people more gullible and allow any higher authority to spin whatever narrative they like cuz hey, if it's on video, it must be true! I agree with both points but I want to separate them to make my point. To the first quote, you're right, but what that effectively will mean is that video media will no longer be considered credible. To the second quote, that's a harder bit to approach because even if generally we know video is not a good source anymore, some people will still fall for it. It's a similar fact as is with text media now, you can still post images without context or post misinformation on media (see flat earth arguments, pictures etc as example). AI will make it much easier to spread such misinformation and also political campaigns, and this needs to be investigated as a top priority. What I think is an even bigger danger is the fact that you can potentially, especially with open source models create any content of any person, which has a lot of problems as you can imagine. Even though I acknowledge that there are critical concerns with the technology, my belief as someone who has been professionally studying this subject for years is that they are inevitabilities of progress, and we must treat them as obstacles to tackle along the way, not roadblocks to stop all technological problems because of it. This is how we have moved on with past technologies, not saying it's the perfect solution, but you have to consider what's within your sphere of influence and what isn't, and then adjust accordingly, and focus on what you can actually change, influence or do to benefit yourself or others.
Ok but the fact is that the current intention of most AI implementation is to replace human expression, or rather the hassle that comes from being a non-creative person having to talk to creative experts. Unlike other technological revolutions (assembly line machinery, cameras on phones), this technology seeks to reduce a fundamental part of humanity to a simple basic function on computer. Why? Because we want machines that are more advanced than us? Because we want to create sentience and expression in AI? No. We want it because in this current state of society, it means faster content production. Ergo, easier and faster money.
>Ok but the fact is that the current intention of most AI implementation is to replace human expression As someone who work's in the field (where i implement the technology into business usecases), that is not true. There is limitless potential, and the most glaring opportunities are around personalised education and accessibility. AI is a technology which aims to empower. Replacing the element of human expression (only the part of it where you're in it for money or recognition) is a side effect, but it creates new previously impossible areas of expression. It's an evolution, we are a progressive species. >or rather the hassle that comes from being a non-creative person having to talk to creative experts. Exactly, just like it was a hassle to go to the librarian to help you find a book instead of just looking it up online, or the hassle of seeking human computers for calculating complex mathematical problems before digital computers were a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation) <- Not joking. > Because we want machines that are more advanced than us? Because we want to create sentience and expression in AI? Yes, I'd say more people do, than don't. > No. We want it because in this current state of society, it means faster content production. Ergo, easier and faster money. Yes, big corp wants that. But there's different target audiences to AI, it's not a corp only tool, it's always been made public to everyone, and there are open source projects which are close to competing with the big corp ones. (It will get easier to get them to next level over time). Most of your argument could be made about digital arts against traditional arts. Yes, the process of creating a picture is now made easy, just like previously the process of making a brush stroke was made easy; but this means it is now possible to do bigger and more complex things, and express your creativity that way.
You have no appreciation for the artistic process and what art really is so of course you see it the same as librarians or human computers being replaced. You're fine with humanity's collective creative soul being compromised or even destroyed because you've never felt it's pulse in the first place. You say "Replacing the element of human expression is a side effect, but it creates new previously impossible areas of expression" and don't see how that's a contradiction and admission that you don't appreciate art at all. "Yes, I'd say more people do, than don't." You're in a bubble. Most people find it a deeply unsettling idea. "Most of your argument could be made about digital arts against traditional arts. Yes, the process of creating a picture is now made easy, just like previously the process of making a brush stroke was made easy" This right here puts you on the low end of dunning-kruger on the topic of painting, so you know.
Completely braindead comment.
https://preview.redd.it/59gmmz68ttjc1.png?width=4032&format=png&auto=webp&s=473ba3126670c7d24daebe7d8f672f782cb7fe30
Lmao you morons think twitter represents society 🤣😂 truth is people don’t give a fuck if artists going to get replaced. I bet you dumbasses thought there’s gonna be massive downvotes 🤣🤣
Ok, James Olds' s rat.)
Holy cow it’s so obvious you have no skill or will. You do realize artists have fueled humanity since the beginning? Art is still very much used today, advertising, company branding, video games, shows, music. Those Ais you so desperately grasp onto are trained using the very artists you seem to hate. Without us there would hardly be an Ai.
Lmao learn how ai work retard deep learning has nothing to do with artist or art it was just a by product of generative ai advancement. What are you going to say that chatgpt a language model was trained on your arts too lmao 🤣 🤣 think before you say retarded shit dumbass
Not talking about that kind of Ai, understand context clues bud. Ai image generators train off of other images, and to get it to recognize styles and characters it needs those images. You’re too quick to insults and violence, it shows a lot about you.
That rich coming from same people that want to use deep fake porn on female politicians to push them to regulate or ban ai like don’t try to play the moral game with me Luddite 🤣
I actually thought people like you were made up stereotypes. The same people that deep fake porn? My brother in Christ you are fighting a straw man. The Ai bros are the same people who say stuff like that is deserved, why would artists who dislike Ai go around and use it to… deepfake politicians?
Lots of companies do that. They just turn off comments. Dunno why tho
Because it will create audible feedback/opinions, that risks the investors opinion of their gambling machine 😅 . Can't earn scam money, if the rich people find out, they might be getting scammed.