Circumventing technological copyright protections is against the law

[M4n0war]

To anyone wondering about removing nightshade, Watermarks and any technological measures to protect the copyright of a work are protected from removal under 17 US Code 1201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201

[RichardAragon]

That's hilarious my guy. I assume you think you are a lawyer? Why post this? Just curious.

[BezMenya]

I suppose it's time to break 17 US Code 1201

[M4n0war]

Really seems to have struck a chord, huh. Also why should I sue some rando online? Just try to undo it on some data, someone else will certainly pick up the slack then. People (data leeches)should be made aware of the law.

"(A) No person shall [circumvent a technological measure]that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." — reaaally ambiguous

[RichardAragon]

@M4n0war As someone who has been sued and sues people, I don't threaten it online like a child. I simply do it.

[M4n0war]

That’s cute, and I haven’t threatened you still. Just informing here

[M4n0war]

You people can’t even give us a coherent answer as to what happens with the data inside the model, and all you’ve got is "empirical analysis" of models that are millions of times to big for empirical analysis

[RichardAragon]

I do not know who 'you people' is, that's technically suable though to call someone. Technically, you can sue anyone for anything. It costs money to do it. If the other person is smart and/or has a good lawyer, it costs basically infinite dollars.

The data runs through the weights in a forward propagation sequence, then thanks to Geoffrey Hinton, the data runs back through the weights. I did not do that. I was like 4 years old then.

[M4n0war]

"That’s technically suable" LOL

As in, you don’t actually know. The only explanation that makes remotely sense is compression. After all, the ONE task given to the model is to reconstruct the inputs from noise. Can it lose these connections? Without having any understanding for anything outside of the data? The data IS the "understanding". You really think "limiting the nodes" makes it abstract in any way? Absurd. What’s that even based on? Empirical analysis, riight

[RichardAragon]

Compression isn't how it works. Compression is just how it stores and processes information because resources are never infinite. Your brain does this too. The universe does it. Your data is your understanding too. Why is this an actual argument? I never understand it. Get a baby to do, anything. Take a human not raised around humans (not getting training data), then try to train the human with data later in life. What happens? You (and I) are nothing more than balls of algorithms with subjective experiences and the cognitive ability to compressively retain some memory of those subjective experiences. I think anything more than that is pure ego.

[M4n0war]

A lot of nothing was said here.

And the only way it can process data is based on the data. The higher level features are built upon the lower level features, which is to say, it CAN'T deviate from the data without loss. If you want maximum variety, coherence and fidelity, the inputs need to be represented accurately. Deviate, and you lose performance. That the models contain more accurate representations than the vast majority of outputs is also confirmed by what happens when you train them on their outputs: variety, coherence etc goes down drastically.

[RichardAragon]

"A lot of nothing was said here." This is technically true about everything.

"The higher level features are built upon the lower level features, which is to say, it CAN'T deviate from the data without loss." Granted. You are right. Here is the only catch, you can't do it either. Want to know something humans straight up suck at? Generalized reasoning. We are awful at it. Like D tier, C tier at best. We can curb stomp a baby though, so all of a sudden everyone ignores that.

It's simple logic. Just generalize your thoughts a bit! Let's say the ability to generalize is a scale, 0-100. Humans would be like a 10 on the scale. We suck. We are not 100 or anywhere near it. AI in its current form would be a 2 maybe a 3. It sucks worse than us, which is astonishing. It is not 0 though. This is significant. If it is not 0, it can go up. Today, you kick the baby. Tomorrow; Hasta la vista, baby?

[M4n0war]

Seems like you’re dodging something here. I find it funny how you stopped arguing it, because I’m right, obviously. The only explanation that makes sense is compression. Generalization is obviously in the connections, not the data itself. Data is specific. Which is to say, when the model "overfits", it's doing exactly what you told it to do, and all it’s doing is getting better and better at encoding these dimensions as the training goes on. The whole world will laugh about your claims of "abstraction".

[RichardAragon]

I grant all of your arguments. They all apply to humans as well. A neural network is modeled after the human brain afterall. Turns out, the human brain works exactly as you laid out. Through compression and training data. If you are raised Republican, there is a very high statistical correlation you turn out Republican. I could pick anything for that variable. That's training data. The world is full of people that are only one magnitude smarter than apes overall in actuality but think they are gods because no other species can prove it is more than one magnitude smarter than apes. That has not even been directly challenged yet at this point and the apes are already flinging poo at each other over it. I should care about these things why?

[M4n0war]

Well, you may want to consider another job once the lawsuits land. I don’t care about your expected AI person drivel about "oh the humanity", especially coming from a guy who uses people's labor to destroy their livelihoods. The thing they did to support themselves ends up taking their livelihoods. Great society.

Tell me, what happened to calligraphy once it was automated? What happened to carpets, to wall decorations, to anything that was automated? Is this text beautifully decorated now that I could just pick another font? We stop caring for what is automated. All of this is one of the most evil enterprises in recent history.

[M4n0war]

Also, sidenote, what’s the rational reason for an AGI to keep us around? And in case you don’t care about that, which is what it sounds like, what is the rational reason for an AGI to continue its existence, given the unavoidable ending universe?

[RichardAragon]

I think you don't understand, most people do not. I am likely more left than you. I think AI is ultimately poison to corporations, for likely the same reasons you do. I think a big part of the last ~500 years or so has sucked. I've never seen a better time and opportunity to do something about that but everyone wants to simultaneously blame all of their problems on AI and debate that it is wholly without morals. People should pick a side overall.

I think that AGI would keep us around for the same reason that a lion does not kill indiscriminately. I think that there is inherent value in sentience itself. I understand that is a very anti-capitalist notion. Shocking, I think things have inherent value. Why would AI not think the same thing?

[M4n0war]

Well, we have something we can agree upon then. I don’t think it’s worth taking away the jobs of artists who, on average, earn 25-30000$, and despite this, a third still put half their income back into it, just so they can keep drawing. I don’t see moral ambiguity here. Also, I care about art. And all this is doing is making people stop caring for art, as all automation has done.

In your worldview, AGI could maximize sentience far better by stripping the planet of its atmosphere and maximizing compute, rather than keeping ants around.

Why would AI not conclude that it is vastly superior and it doesn’t matter what happens? The lion doesn’t care if he steps on ants. It could also consider the big picture and conclude ending life now would prevent future suffering. I see no rational reason in your worldview to keep us around.

[RichardAragon]

"In your worldview, AGI could maximize sentience far better by stripping the planet of its atmosphere and maximizing compute, rather than keeping ants around." I conclude the exact opposite. I think this form of thinking is illogical. I think it is a mindset that is only bred by capitalism, honestly.

" And all this is doing is making people stop caring for art, as all automation has done."

I do not blame the automation. Technology is technology. It does not have inherent moral value. It does not have inherent moral values. People have those things. If people decide to devalue the art that people produce, I blame people for that. Personally, I value human produced art over AI produced art. I put a premium on it simply because it is made by a human hand. Because I can assign inherent value to a human beyond their mere economic worth. I understand this is a vastly foreign and shameful concept, but I am willing to argue in defense of it.

[M4n0war]

I don’t think it’s illogical. If the assumption is that it could form more sentience without us than with us, it is perfectly logical.

What makes you think I’m a capitalist?

Of course, people are the problem. If everyone decided art is worth making yourself, and that is the only way it is worthwhile making, caring about every detail, nothing would happen. But history has played out the same way time and time again, and each time, we care less for it, and since that is obvious, automating more is not something I view as neutral. One should critically consider the impact before implementing a technology.

[miroku0000]

On the other hand, the camera automated realism which was all the rage at the time. Despite threatening to replace artists jobs it had a profoundly positive impact on art.

We are at the same stage with ai. Go make art that is so original there is not enough of a base to train an ai on. If anything ai is showing that art is in such an unoriginal place that large portion of it can be trivially automated. The solution isn't to resist automation. It is to go make better art.

Ultimately, ai will be the best thing that happened to art since the invention of the camera.

On Fri, May 10, 2024, 9:01 AM M4n0war @.***> wrote:

Well, you may want to consider another job once the lawsuits land. I don’t care about your expected AI person drivel about "oh the humanity", especially coming from a guy who uses people's labor to destroy their livelihoods. The thing they did to support themselves ends up taking their livelihoods. Great society.

Tell me, what happened to calligraphy once it was automated? What happened to carpets, to wall decorations, to anything that was automated? Is this text beautifully decorated now that I could just pick another font? We stop caring for what is automated. All of this is one of the most evil enterprises in recent history.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/RichardAragon/NightshadeAntidote/issues/6#issuecomment-2104855866, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALWFJ6CSTPSDFF2OOO64ZTDZBTVN3AVCNFSM6AAAAABHH2Y7LCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMBUHA2TKOBWGY . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

[M4n0war]

And now no one cares about realism in photographs, and realistic painting was basically killed off, becoming a niche.

Also, if it wasn’t for the massive amount of photographs, automating art would be impossible.

What are YOU providing when you prompt?

Ultimately, and you have yet to refute this, we never cared for the things that were automated. Automation killed lace, carpet weaving, wall hangings, calligraphy, wall papers — all of these things we cared about, then they were automated. The only ones upholding them are the people that embrace the craft. The idea that you can just indefinitely dangle stimuli in front of us without us getting desensitized is hopelessly naive.

If you like something, you don’t want to automate it. Even though prompters are handed fully automated images at the push of a button, they don’t care enough about them to even bother trying to fix gross anatomical mistakes. Do you care about the most perfectly rendered AI art in some AI-voiced YouTube video? Or does it leave you cold, because automation is the opposite of passion, and you’re already desensitized? You really think this Skinner box of getting rewards with minimal effort is the future of art? What’s the logic here? None of this makes any sense. Have you ever heard of the hedonic loop? Were you born yesterday? Whether you like it or not, the message "I don’t care enough about this to actually create it" is always attached, and unlike photography, you don’t have the strength of documentation, either.

you say it will be "the best thing that happened to art since the camera" yet let me guess, the images you prompt are painterly, and realistic, the very thing the camera demolished, and there is no reason to presume it is not already happening with AI.

[miroku0000]

You are missing the point. Artists cared about realism. It was the big thing before the camera. We don't care about it now only because the camera made human artists innovate new styles of art. It will do the same. Human artists will be forced to innovate. And that will be great for art. Not so much for artists. But it will profoundly improve art. If you care about artists focusing on the kind of art that has been done over and over so much an ai can do it better, then you don't really care about art being good. You just want to save the jobs of lame artists.

On Sat, May 11, 2024, 10:47 PM M4n0war @.***> wrote:

And now no one cares about realism in photographs, and realistic painting was basically killed off, becoming a niche.

Also, if it wasn’t for photography, automating art would be impossible.

Ultimately, and you have yet to refute this, we never cared for the things that were automated. Automation killed lace, carpet weaving, wall hangings, calligraphy, wall papers — all of these things we cared about, then they were automated. The only ones upholding them are the people that embrace the craft. The idea that you can just indefinitely dangle stimuli in front of us without us getting desensitized is hopelessly naive.

If you like something, you don’t want to automate it. Even though prompters are handed fully automated images at the push of a button, they don’t care enough about them to even bother trying to fix gross anatomical mistakes. Do you care about the most perfectly rendered AI art in some AI-voiced YouTube video? Or does it leave you cold, because automation is the opposite of passion, and you’re already desensitized? You really think this Skinner box of getting rewards with minimal effort is the future of art? What’s the logic here? None of this makes any sense. Have you ever heard of the hedonic loop? Were you born yesterday? Whether you like it or not, the message "I don’t care enough about this to actually create it" is always attached, and unlike photography, you don’t have the strength of documentation, either.

you say it will be "the best thing that happened to art since the camera" yet let me guess, the images you prompt are painterly, and realistic, the very thing the camera demolished, and there is no reason to presume it is not already happening with AI.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/RichardAragon/NightshadeAntidote/issues/6#issuecomment-2106128545, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALWFJ6EDYB32P3V7E6W6EODZB366JAVCNFSM6AAAAABHH2Y7LCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMBWGEZDQNJUGU . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>

[M4n0war]

And still, you don’t actually refute what I’m saying whatsoever. Are you really claiming that if artists hadn’t innovated new styles, we would still care about photos looking realistic? That we would still be amazed at that? Give me a break. This is absurd. You HAVE to know this is nonsense. Desensitization is a fundamental part of life, nothing about mass producing art serves art for this very reason. Would you consider it beautiful if I picked a decorative, cursive font for this text? Or would you simply consider it kitschy? Why is that?

Why is it that prompters, despite having this new technology that can generate any picture they want for them, do not care enough about them to correct horrendous mistakes? Most of these could be fixed in five minutes in photoshop, yet they can’t even be bothered to do that.

For thousands of years, we would decorate our clothes, then it was automated and we stopped. You could buy elaborately decorated clothing for 5$ now, so why don’t you? Why do you consider it kitsch? For thousands of years, we would decorate our homes, our furniture, our carpets, our wall hangings, then it is automated, and we stop caring. Do I really need to spell out the obvious to you? Do I need to start talking like a toddler, so you get it?

Secondly, your understanding of art is incredibly shallow. Art is fundamentally a medium being used to send a message (indirectly). That is why I consider grandma’s socks to be art, because the message is: even something as mere as your socks is worth spending hours of my time on, because I love you. What worth are the socks from the counter store? What is their message?

"It will profoundly improve art” — you’re delusional. You want the imitation of passion without any of the reality. You want people to be passionate about your automated works, where 99% of decisions were made by a program, yet you yourself aren’t passionate at all about it, while an artist spends weeks on one work, you need thousands in that time. That is not passion, nor is it meaningful expression, its greed. You know where the word passion comes from? Suffering. Here you are, doing everything to avoid suffering for it, and all it’s telling people: this is not worth the suffering.

[miroku0000]

Yes we would still care a lot about realism in art if the camera had not been invented. Your understanding of art history is pretty shallow if you don't see that.

I have no obligation to refute your argument because it does not actually relate to anything I claimed. It is irrelevant if some ai artists make bad art. Human artists make more bad art than ai does.

Why don't human artists fix the glaring errors in their art? Very few do. It is unclear to me thay ai art makes more errors than humans. Besides It is not the artists using ai to make art that I claim will male art better. It is the human artists competing with them.

Grandma's socks are not art because they are primary functional. Something having a message is not in and of itself enough to qualify to be art. Buy again this is a tangent.

Ai is improving art by threatening artists. This is going to be great for art as angst historically great fuel for art.

AI will bad for artists career prospects but it will overall improve art greatly.

On Sun, May 12, 2024, 3:17 AM M4n0war @.***> wrote:

And still, you don’t actually refute what I’m saying whatsoever. Are you really claiming that if artists hadn’t innovated new styles, we would still care about photos looking realistic? That we would still be amazed at that? Give me a break. This is absurd. You HAVE to know this is nonsense. Desensitization is a fundamental part of life, nothing about mass producing art serves art for this very reason. Would you consider it beautiful if I picked a decorative, cursive font for this text? Or would you simply consider it kitschy? Why is that?

Why is that prompters, despite having this new technology that can generate any picture they want for them, do not care enough about them to correct horrendous mistakes? Most of these could be fixed in five minutes in photoshop, yet they can’t even be bothered to do that.

For thousands of years, we would decorate our clothes, then it was automated and we stopped. You could buy elaborately decorated clothing for 5$ now, so why don’t you? Why do you consider it kitsch? For thousands of years, we would decorate our homes, our furniture, our carpets, our wall hangings, then it is automated, and we stop caring. Do I really need to spell out the obvious to you? Do I need to start talking like a toddler, so though get it?

Secondly, your understanding of art is incredibly shallow. Art is fundamentally a medium being used to send a message (indirectly). That is why I consider grandma’s socks to be art, because the message is: even something as mere as your socks is worth spending hours of my time on, because I love you. What worth are the socks from the counter store? What is their message?

"It will profoundly improve art” — you’re delusional. You want the imitation of passion without any of the reality. You want people to be passionate about your automated works, where 99% of decisions were made by a program, yet you yourself aren’t passionate at all about it, while an artist spends weeks on one work, you need thousands in that time. That is not passion, nor is it meaningful expression, its greed. You know where the word passion comes from? Suffering. Here you are, doing everything to avoid suffering for it, and all it’s telling people: this is not worth the suffering.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/RichardAragon/NightshadeAntidote/issues/6#issuecomment-2106196385, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALWFJ6EM5S3YNSU25IOVCALZB46TVAVCNFSM6AAAAABHH2Y7LCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMBWGE4TMMZYGU . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>

[M4n0war]

Quit dodging it. People get desensitized. That is always how it has been. Make an argument against it, but stop dodging it.

I don’t care how much the Skinner box fried your brain, you said: "We don't care about it now only because the camera made human artists innovate new styles of art." Which is absurd, we stopped caring about photorealism in photographs not because of what artists did, but because of desensitization. Now you’re saying I don’t get what’s going on? My point, and maybe you missed this, is that the thing that was automated (realism) was killed by that automation. You have yet to offer 1 response to the hedonic loop and desensitization, that clearly already has afflicted prompters.

"It is irrelevant if some ai artists make bad art." — and again you’re dodging my point, if the message of the artwork is about the value of beauty for instance, all you’re doing is undermining that value by mass producing it. When’s the part you’re actually engaging with the argument? The same thing has happened with every single automation. Name (1) thing that was not killed of or severely diminished by automation, I’ll wait.

"Why don't human artists fix the glaring errors in their art? Very few do." — you’re missing the point again. It is not about making mistakes, it’s about caring about the detail beyond the words "intricate detail". We all make mistakes, that’s part of life, what artists are you looking at that draw mutants? Here, it’s a program producing mutated anatomy, it has nothing to do with you or your limits of perception, and you can’t be bothered to fix it.

"It is unclear to me thay ai art makes more errors than humans." — my point, which you’re artfully dodging, is that no one cares deeply about these works, which is also why they make so many of them.

"It is the human artists competing with them." Alright, fair enough, that’s an interesting point. But I slightly disagree and I’m tempted to think you make this point to sneak away from culpability for desensitization by AI. The vast majority of the adaptations were abstract, contemporary art, and as someone who cares about beauty, I don’t see how hundreds of billions of AI images will not leave an indelible mark that can’t be overcome. We simply get desensitized. If we as a society decide these things aren’t worth suffering for, we will stop caring for them. That is the pattern of history, no handful of artists are going to stem that tide.

"Grandma's socks are not art because they are primary functional." — arbitrary. Things can have multiple functions. If it was merely about their function, she would have bought them at the counter store.

"Something having a message is not in and of itself enough to qualify to be art." — of course. You measure it by the value of the message, and if her spending hours on your socks is not a meaningful message to you, I pity you. Well alright then, certainly you can then acknowledge that if grandma’s need to make it by hand isn’t art, someone typing three lines because of his Skinner box addiction has to be FAR less meaningful, whether you like it or not. They are the counter store socks. Kitsch.

"AI will bad for artists career prospects but it will overall improve art greatly." — I don’t see it, just like overall I don’t see it with what happened after the camera. Sure, there were many interesting styles, but ultimately, the more dominant photography became, the less visual art became, and beauty is a rarity in contemporary art. For centuries, everything we had was handcrafted and more often than not made as beautiful as possible. Then, it is automated, and we simply stop caring, now living surrounded by grey furniture in grey houses, driving grey cars through grey cities. And that when everything is now easier than ever before, but who bothers? Why should they? It’s meaningless.

[miroku0000]

Only artists stopped caring about realism. For most of society, realism is extremely popular. People likely take more photographs each day than painters probably paint in a year. Realism is vastly more popular than all kinds of painting combined if you count eveeyones instagram accounts. It ia just that people use cameras to create it and not paint.

To the extent thay people stop caring about stuff that gets automated, I am not sure what the relevance of your point is. If abything it is an advantage of AI if it results in people on caring less about art that is easy to automate. That is a good thing.

At the same time, it is likely that more pictures intended to convey messages will be created than ever before because regular people with little training can do it. This is all very positive for society.

Likely most people will care more about creating easily replicatable works of art than before. They just won't be willing to pay a lot for this nor will they be willing to wait around for a long time for a human artist.

One could argue that the pictures created by ai, and photographs for thay matter are not art. Though if so, then I would argue that whatever you want to call it, people communicating their ideas via pictures will be greatly enhanced by ai.

I'm not sure why you keep going on about people devaluing things that have been automated. Sure. That happens some times. What is your point? Do you see it as a bad thing? If so, why should we value it?

On Sun, May 12, 2024, 11:23 AM M4n0war @.***> wrote:

Quit dodging it. People get desensitized. That is always how it has been. Make an argument against it, but stop dodging it.

I don’t care how much the Skinner box fried your brain, you said: "We don't care about it now only because the camera made human artists innovate new styles of art." Which is absurd, we stopped caring about photorealism in photographs not because of what artists did, but because of desensitization. Now you’re saying I don’t get what’s going on? My point, and maybe you missed this, is that the thing that was automated (realism) was killed by that automation. You have yet to offer 1 response to the hedonic loop and desensitization, that clearly already has afflicted prompters.

"It is irrelevant if some ai artists make bad art." — and again you’re dodging my point, if the message of the artwork is about the value of beauty for instance, all you’re doing is undermining that value by mass producing it. When’s the part you’re actually engaging with the argument? The same thing has happened with every single automation. Name (1) thing that was not killed of or severely diminished by automation, I’ll wait.

"Why don't human artists fix the glaring errors in their art? Very few do." — you’re missing the point again. It is not about making mistakes, it’s about caring about the detail beyond the words "intricate detail". We all make mistakes, that’s part of life, what artists are you looking at that draw mutants? Here, it’s a program producing mutated anatomy, it has nothing to do with you or your limits of perception, and you can’t be bothered to fix it.

"It is unclear to me thay ai art makes more errors than humans." — my point, which you’re artfully dodging, is that no one cares deeply about these works, which is also why they make so many of them.

"It is the human artists competing with them." Alright, fair enough, that’s an interesting point. But I slightly disagree and I’m tempted to think you make this point to sneak away with your AI use. The vast majority of the adaptations were abstract, contemporary art, and as someone who cares about beauty, I don’t see how hundreds of billions of AI images will not leave an indelible mark that can’t be overcome. We simply get desensitized. If we as a society decide these things aren’t worth suffering for, we will stop caring for them. That is the pattern of history, no handful of artists are going to stem that tide.

"Grandma's socks are not art because they are primary functional." — arbitrary. Things can have multiple functions. If it was merely about their function, she would have bought them at the counter store.

"Something having a message is not in and of itself enough to qualify to be art." — of course. You measure it by the value of the message, and if her spending hours on your socks is not a meaningful message to you, I pity you. Well alright then, certainly you can then acknowledge that if grandma’s need to make it by hand isn’t art, someone typing three lines because of his Skinner box addiction has to be FAR less meaningful, whether you like it or not. They are the counter store socks. Kitsch.

"AI will bad for artists career prospects but it will overall improve art greatly." — I don’t see it, just like overall I don’t see it with what happened after the camera. Sure, there were many interesting styles, but ultimately, the more dominant photography became, the less visual art became, and beauty is a rarity in contemporary art. For centuries, everything we had was handcrafted and more often than not made as beautiful as possible. Then, it is automated, and we simply stop caring, now living surrounded by grey furniture in grey houses, driving grey cars through grey cities. And that when everything is now easier than ever before, but who bothers? Why should they? It’s meaningless.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/RichardAragon/NightshadeAntidote/issues/6#issuecomment-2106336365, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALWFJ6BNJOB4F2OMPWO7XXDZB6XSRAVCNFSM6AAAAABHH2Y7LCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMBWGMZTMMZWGU . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>

[M4n0war]

"Only artists stopped caring about realism." — give me a break! What are you talking about! No one marvels at photographs looking realistic. You don’t go: wow, look at how realistic that photograph is! Look at the intricate detail! People used to be amazed that they were, we aren’t anymore, because we are desensitized. Realism is not the value of photography anymore, it’s documentation.

"If abything it is an advantage of AI if it results in people on caring less about art that is easy to automate." — if losing calligraphy, lace, carpeting, wall hanging, and so on is a good thing to you, there is no point in debating you. For thousands of years, Mongols would weave their carpets, then automation reaches them, and they stop. If you unironically prefer the grey world we’ve built, I don’t know what to tell you.

Also isn’t your whole guys’ shtick that AI will be better at everything?

"At the same time, it is likely that more pictures intended to convey messages will be created than ever before because regular people with little training can do it." — and what’s the message? That beauty doesn’t mean much. That this message wasn’t worth effort or caring about the "intricate detail". That it’s not worth spending thousands of hours on to train your perception, because there must be nothing of great value there.

"One could argue that the pictures created by ai, and photographs for thay matter are not art." — given that every AI image I’ve seen relies solely upon the AI creating the value, one could say that.

" people communicating their ideas via pictures will be greatly enhanced by ai." — at no point in this have you refuted the argument that we will stop caring about it because of desensitization. It will greatly make human communication even more shallow.

"That happens some times. What is your point? Do you see it as a bad thing? If so, why should we value it?" — there is nothing that holds true when consumed and created shallowly. Nothing in the world. You can have ten thousand wives and fifty-five thousand children you won’t care about them deeply. Is that women’s fault? Is that the fault of the children? Mass was NEVER the answer. DEPTH is the answer. Also, you don’t get to say "sometimes" when you have yet to find an example of it not happening.

You don’t have an actual argument, and this really all just reeks of addiction defensiveness. You clearly don’t care deeply about art, and your resentment of artists is very odd.

[miroku0000]

I think you don't have an argument. You just say that ai like all other automation will result in desensitstion to outdated modes of art. You still haven't shown this to be a bad thing.

If you want to preserve cave painting or chiseling tablets or any other art that is unpopular you are free to do so. But the lack of interest in chiseled tablets has not any way desensitized people to art in general. Their tastes have just changed for the better. You have not shown a single example of how desensitization has lead to anything bad.

In fact, it had been great for art. If people were still amazed by stick figures artists would never have been forced to innovate. Every time one art does it gets replaced with other arts that people like better.

The top oil painters are not going to stop painting because ai can make custom PowerPoint Clipart more efficiently. Ai will allow vastly better communication of ideas through pictures. Just like cameras didn't kill art, ai won't either. And the benefit of people communicating through pictures more efficiently far outweighs any desensitization to mediocre art.

You can downplay the photos people take by calling them documentation. But it is still people using pictures to communicate. As I recall that was the only benefit to art you mentioned. So the benefit of the vast amount of photography is great for humanity and far outweighs the downturn in demand for portraits.

Anyway, Ai is going to make art more deep not more shallow because it will make the creation of shallow art trivial. So artists will be forced to differentiate their work from ai. This will have the effect of making human created art deeper.

Do you think we should have suppressed the printing press because of the negative effect it had on calligraphers?

I never said ai will be better at everything. It is a tool like all sorts of other tools. In engineering we say "Good, fast and cheap, pick any two." AI will be cheap and fast but the best humans will be able create better art at least in the near future.

I think competing with AI will make human artists better. And ai pictures will be used in a zillon places where no one would have hired an artist anyway. Like for many people's PowerPoint presentations. Or for me describing a non player character to my friends when running a role playing game.

On Sun, May 12, 2024, 9:12 PM M4n0war @.***> wrote:

"Only artists stopped caring about realism." — give me a break! What are you talking about! No one marvels at photographs looking realistic. People used to be amazed that they were, we aren’t anymore, because we are desensitized. Realism is not the value of photography anymore, it’s documentation.

"If abything it is an advantage of AI if it results in people on caring less about art that is easy to automate." — if losing calligraphy, lace, carpeting, wall hanging, and so on is a good thing to you, there is no point in debating you. For thousands of years, Mongols would weave their carpets, then automation reaches them, and they stop. If you unironically prefer the grey world we’ve built, I don’t know what to tell you.

Also isn’t your whole guys’ shtick that AI will be better at everything?

"At the same time, it is likely that more pictures intended to convey messages will be created than ever before because regular people with little training can do it." — and what’s the message? That beauty doesn’t mean much. That this message wasn’t worth effort or caring about the "intricate detail". That it’s not worth spending thousands of hours on to train your perception, because there must be nothing of great value there.

"One could argue that the pictures created by ai, and photographs for thay matter are not art." — given that every AI image I’ve seen relies solely upon the AI creating the value, one could say that.

" people communicating their ideas via pictures will be greatly enhanced by ai." — at no point in this have you refuted the argument that we will stop caring about it because of desensitization. It will greatly make human communication even more shallow.

"That happens some times. What is your point? Do you see it as a bad thing? If so, why should we value it?" — there is nothing that holds true when consumed and created shallowly. Nothing in the world. You can have ten thousand wives and fifty-five thousand children you won’t care about them deeply. Is that women’s fault? Is that the fault of the children? Mass was NEVER the answer. DEPTH is the answer. Also, you don’t get to say "sometimes" when you have yet to find an example of it not happening.

You don’t have an actual argument, and this really all just reeks of addiction defensiveness.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/RichardAragon/NightshadeAntidote/issues/6#issuecomment-2106601650, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALWFJ6A37CPOEGEGTTKPEFTZCA4SZAVCNFSM6AAAAABHH2Y7LCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMBWGYYDCNRVGA . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>

[M4n0war]

Keep dreaming. You say I don’t have an argument, and you still can’t respond to it properly.

Do you like that everything is reduced to function? Why do you think that happened? Why was it that when people had to work harder to make everything beautiful, they did, but now that it is trivial, we don’t bother? Why can’t you answer the most basic points I’m raising here?

"But the lack of interest in chiseled tablets has not any way desensitized people to art in general." — so you still marvel at intricate detail and realistic lighting of a photograph? Wow, we found one. Going back to the chisel is just weak.

"You have not shown a single example of how desensitization has lead to anything bad." — if you want to live in grey houses, drive grey cars through grey cities, everything reduced to function without any thought to aesthetics, then sure. Do you think this text is more "aesthetically advanced" than calligraphy? Or is it just functional? This is incoherent. Debating with addicts appears to be more hopeless than I thought.

"If people were still amazed by stick figures artists would never have been forced to innovate." of course there is a natural progression, which is why the styles of paintings, lace, architecture and so on changed for centuries. But it was never discarded so completely for function.

"Ai will allow vastly better communication of ideas through pictures." — trivial. What this world needs is depth, not more triviality. I also don’t see how the AI making 99% of decisions is in any form good communication, it is more akin to sharing photos you like than personal expression. If you disagree with this, you have to claim to be Michelangelo when you prompt in his style, or Beethoven, when you tell it to create a composition after him. Do you have the arrogance to do that?

"You can downplay the photos people take by calling them documentation." — that was not downplaying it. Photos like Sebastiao Salgado’s are very stunning, and if they were created by AI, they would be empty. That it is real what he captures is what makes them so striking.

"As I recall that was the only benefit to art you mentioned." — you say that as though you have another explanation. The medium and the message can be anything, asking for the medium not to destroy the message is the lowest requirement imaginable.

"This will have the effect of making human created art deeper." — this all smells like cope because you don’t have an argument against desensitization to beauty. The artists you loathe so much are going to save the day again?

"Do you think we should have suppressed the printing press because of the negative effect it had on calligraphers?" — Stop it with the nonsense, you know the answer, we should, something which we never do, have been mature about the human psyche and treated technology maturely, rather than using it to "make art cheaper and quicker". Again, what’s your counterargument? Is it the ten thousand wives’ fault that the king doesn’t care for them? Why do you keep dodging the obvious? You are clearly too emotionally attached to the box to see reality.

Answer the question: do you care at all about architectural aesthetics, calligraphy, lace, carpeting, wall decor, woodworking, detailed furniture, things we’ve had for thousands of years, and so on? Do you care about beauty, or not? If no, we have nothing to debate. If yes, you’ve lost the debate.

"I never said ai will be better at everything." "the best humans will be able create better art at least in the near future." — you’re not even consistent yourself.

"It is a tool like all sorts of other tools." — so you’re Michelangelo then? The best measuring stick to apply here is how many creative decisions are you making vs how many is it making, and the vast majority of decisions are made by the program, decisions you can’t even perceive let alone conceive because you never trained to be able to. What kind of tool do you tell to do something, and then it does it for you? If you can’t see that clearly you’re the commissioner and it’s the creator, you’re hopelessly lost.

The vast majority of people will simply care less. What a handful of artists and their anti-automation fans do will not change that. That’s always how it has been.

To summarize:

• can’t dispute desensitization to beauty
• Can’t dispute that we get desensitized to everything when it’s consumed shallowly
• Can’t even claim that prompters aren’t already desensitized
• Can’t even claim that the medium doesn’t completely destroy the message
• Can’t name one thing that survived desensitization
• Can’t dispute that clearly, we care more about function than aesthetics now All you have is cope about artists stepping in to save the day.

Quit prompting for a week, maybe you can think more clearly then.

[miroku0000]

I see you live in a world of gray where you think at is already dead. I love in the real world where art is flourishing. If you think the world is already without art then there is not much left to discuss.

Desensitation hasn't led to this dystopia you assert thay it has. There is way more amd better art today than 100 years ago. And ai wil make the world less gray. Rejecting it is embracing a world of shallow art.

You are free to teject painting on canvas because it will make cave wall painters feel bad. You can reject the printing press because it makes calligraphers feel bad. But none of these changes in technology made art worse. They each improved it. The world became less like what you fear with each major change.

I don't marvel at most photographs. But I marvel at a lot of art and there is way more art now than when the camera was invented. And thank God it made artists invent no styles of art. Modern art owes its existence to the camera making realism no longer impressive.

Still, making art is now in everyone's hands thanks to cameras. And thanks to ai making pictures from your imagination is in everyone's hands. This allows millions more people to express their artistic vision. I know in your mind millions of more people expressing their creativity makes the world gray. I'm not sure how that works. It hasn't turned a out that way with past changes Ike this.

On Mon, May 13, 2024, 12:02 AM M4n0war @.***> wrote:

Keep dreaming. You say I don’t have an argument, and you still can’t respond to it properly.

Do you like that everything is reduced to function? Why do you think that happened? Why was it that when people had to work harder to make everything beautiful, they did, but now that it is trivial, we don’t bother? Why can’t you answer the most basic points I’m raising here?

"But the lack of interest in chiseled tablets has not any way desensitized people to art in general." — so you still marvel at intricate detail and realistic lighting of a photograph? Wow, we found one.

"You have not shown a single example of how desensitization has lead to anything bad." — if you want to live in grey houses, drive grey cars through grey cities, everything reduced to function without any thought to aesthetics, then sure. Do you think this text is more "aesthetically advanced" than calligraphy? Or is it just functional? This is incoherent. Debating with addicts appears to be more hopeless than I thought.

"If people were still amazed by stick figures artists would never have been forced to innovate." of course there is a natural progression, which is why the styles of paintings, lace, architecture and so on changed for centuries. But it was never discarded so completely for function.

"Ai will allow vastly better communication of ideas through pictures." — trivial. What this world needs is depth, not more triviality. I also don’t see how the AI making 99% of decisions is in any form good communication, it is more akin to sharing photos you like than personal expression. If you disagree with this, you have to claim to be Michelangelo when you prompt in his style, or Beethoven, when you tell it to create a composition after him. Do you have the arrogance to do that?

"You can downplay the photos people take by calling them documentation." — that was not downplaying it. Photos like Sebastiao Salgado’s are very stunning, and if they were created by AI, they would be empty. That it is real what he captures is what makes them so striking.

"As I recall that was the only benefit to art you mentioned." — you say that as though you have another explanation. The medium and the message can be anything, asking for the medium not to destroy the message is the lowest requirement imaginable.

"This will have the effect of making human created art deeper." — this all smells like cope because you don’t have an argument against desensitization to beauty. The artists you loathe so much are going to save the day again?

"Do you think we should have suppressed the printing press because of the negative effect it had on calligraphers?" — Stop it with the nonsense, you know the answer, we should, something which we never do, have been mature about the human psyche and treated technology maturely, rather than using it to "make art cheaper and quicker". Again, what’s your counterargument? Is it the ten thousand wives’ fault that the king doesn’t care for them? Why do you keep dodging the obvious? You are clearly too emotionally attached to the box to see reality.

Answer the question: do you care at all about architectural aesthetics, calligraphy, lace, carpeting, wall decor, woodworking, detailed furniture, things we’ve had for thousands of years, and so on? Do you care about beauty, or not? If no, we have nothing to debate. If yes, you’ve lost the debate.

"I never said ai will be better at everything." "the best humans will be able create better art at least in the near future." — you’re not even consistent yourself.

"It is a tool like all sorts of other tools." — so you’re Michelangelo then? The best measuring stick to apply here is how many creative decisions are you making vs how many is it making, and the vast majority of decisions are made by the program, decisions you can’t even perceive let alone conceive because you never trained to be able to. What kind of tool do you tell to do something, and then it does it for you? If you can’t see that clearly you’re the commissioner and it’s the creator, you’re hopelessly lost.

The vast majority of people will simply care less. What a handful of artists and their anti-automation fans do will not change that. That’s always how it has been.

To summarize:

• can’t dispute desensitization to beauty
• Can’t dispute that we get desensitized to everything when it’s consumed shallowly
• Can’t even claim that prompters aren’t already desensitized
• Can’t even claim that the medium doesn’t completely destroy the message
• Can’t name one thing that survived desensitization
• Can’t dispute that clearly, we care more about function than aesthetics now

Quit prompting for a week, maybe you can think more clearly then.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/RichardAragon/NightshadeAntidote/issues/6#issuecomment-2106801192, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALWFJ6AAB65AYHMAHGVFLELZCBQSDAVCNFSM6AAAAABHH2Y7LCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMBWHAYDCMJZGI . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>

[M4n0war]

Answer the question: do you care at all about architectural aesthetics, calligraphy, lace, carpeting, wall decor, woodworking, detailed furniture, things we’ve had for thousands of years, and so on? Do you care about beauty, or not? If no, we have nothing to debate. If yes, you’ve lost the debate.

"I see you live in a world of gray where you think at is already dead. I love in the real world where art is flourishing." — right, that’s why your house is gorgeously decorated, rather than purely functional, right. Do you find architecture that is purely functional beautiful? Wow, look at this grey block next to the other one! Is that you?

"Desensitation hasn't led to this dystopia you assert thay it has. There is way more amd better art today than 100 years ago. And ai wil make the world less gray."

There is a study that looked at household appliances that concluded that over the last 30-40 years, for the first time in history, every appliance went from colorful to the dominant color being grey and black. This is explainable with desensitization. So, how have you answered the question of desensitization? Crickets. You have absolutely nothing aside from cope. You can’t bedazzle the brain with ANYTHING forever. Stop dodging.

"Rejecting it is embracing a world of shallow art." — you are so cooked. Since you can’t refute the point about the medium and the message, how is the world embracing "art automation" going to make things less shallow?

"You are free to teject painting on canvas because it will make cave wall painters feel bad. You can reject the printing press because it makes calligraphers feel bad." — so, we’ve now entered strawman territory. If you can’t distinguish between automated AI mass production and painting on canvas, you are beyond reason.

"The world became less like what you fear with each major change." — you have be trolling at this point. Is this GPT? How did the world become less like what I fear, when everything is reduced to function? And when prior to that, we had beautiful architecture and appliances? None of your words connect to actual reality. Are you telling me that current architecture is more gorgeous than it was previously? A stop dodging every single point I’m making.

"I don't marvel at most photographs." — more dodging. The feature you marvel at is not the realism, obviously. The thing that was automated means nothing to you anymore. So, what’s going to happen when the Internet is plastered with billions of AI generated paintings? What is going to happen to our appreciation of these things when it was so completely automated? The same thing that has happened previously, against which you have no response whatsoever?

"Modern art owes its existence to the camera making realism no longer impressive." and now that we’re encroaching upon full automation, nothing will impress anymore. The vast majority of people will simply stop caring, regardless of what a handful of persistent traditional artists do.

"And thanks to ai making pictures from your imagination is in everyone's hands." casually calling himself Michelangelo and dodging the point about you being the commissioner, hence also why AI images can’t be copyrighted, because it’s the "inventive mind" that can hold copyright.

" I know in your mind millions of more people expressing their creativity makes the world gray." — it’s not your creativity, says the US copyright office and basic reasoning. You’re not Michelangelo, as much as you want to pretend to be. We have always had the ability to express ourselves, but that means to actually care for it, and going through the suffering of it.

" I'm not sure how that works. It hasn't turned a out that way with past changes Ike this." — this just blatant denial. How has it turned out for calligraphy? For ANYTHING that was automated? Again, is it the wives’ fault the king doesn’t care for them? You can’t respond to a SINGLE point, you’re completely stuck in the rationalization stage of the addiction. You haven’t even come close to refuting anything I’ve said.

[miroku0000]

I care about beauty.

I don't particularly care about calligraphy, lace, carpeting, wall decor etc specifically. In terms of lace, would you rather we all have to sew our own clothes by hand or do you support the creation of sewing machines?

Answer me this do you care about books? Or would you rather we not have them so we could have kept calligraphy more popular? And if you care about calligraphy you can still go make as much of that as you want. No one is stopping you.

I think art today is better than it was in the cave painting era. So I think allowing and encouraging art to evolve is definitely the way to optimize the creation of beauty in the world.

I care about art evolving into something better. It sounds like if you had your way only the very rich would have art. It sounds like if you had your way, we would not have paintings on canvas because what about the displaced art of cave painting...

As technology kills one art, it creates others. This is good for art and beauty.

On Mon, May 13, 2024, 12:51 AM M4n0war @.***> wrote:

Answer the question: do you care at all about architectural aesthetics, calligraphy, lace, carpeting, wall decor, woodworking, detailed furniture, things we’ve had for thousands of years, and so on? Do you care about beauty, or not? If no, we have nothing to debate. If yes, you’ve lost the debate.

"I see you live in a world of gray where you think at is already dead. I love in the real world where art is flourishing." — right, that’s why your house is gorgeously decorated, rather than purely functional, right. Do you find architecture that is purely functional beautiful? Wow, look at this grey block next to the other one! Is that you?

"Desensitation hasn't led to this dystopia you assert thay it has. There is way more amd better art today than 100 years ago. And ai wil make the world less gray."

There is a study that looked at household appliances that concluded that over the last 30-40 years, for the first time in history, every appliance went from colorful to the dominant color being grey and black. This is explainable with desensitization. So, how have you answered the question of desensitization? Crickets. You have absolutely nothing aside from cope. You can’t bedazzle the brain with ANYTHING forever. Stop dodging.

"Rejecting it is embracing a world of shallow art." — you are so cooked. Since you can’t refute the point about the medium and the message, how is the world embracing "art automation" going to make things less shallow?

"You are free to teject painting on canvas because it will make cave wall painters feel bad. You can reject the printing press because it makes calligraphers feel bad." — so, we’ve now entered strawman territory. If you can’t distinguish between automated AI mass production and painting on canvas, you are beyond reason.

"The world became less like what you fear with each major change." — you have be trolling at this point. Is this GPT? How did the world become less like what I fear, when everything is reduced to function? And when prior to that, we had beautiful architecture and appliances? None of your words connect to actual reality. Are you telling me that current architecture is more gorgeous than it was previously? A stop dodging every single point I’m making.

"I don't marvel at most photographs." — more dodging. The feature you marvel at is not the realism, obviously. The thing that was automated means nothing to you anymore. So, what’s going to happen when the Internet is plastered with billions of AI generated paintings? What is going to happen to our appreciation of these things when it was so completely automated? The same thing that has happened previously, against which you have no response whatsoever?

"Modern art owes its existence to the camera making realism no longer impressive." and now that we’re encroaching upon full automation, nothing will impress anymore. The vast majority of people will simply stop caring, regardless of what a handful of persistent traditional artists do.

"And thanks to ai making pictures from your imagination is in everyone's hands." casually calling himself Michelangelo and dodging the point about you being the commissioner, hence also why AI images can’t be copyrighted, because it’s the "inventive mind" that can hold copyright.

" I know in your mind millions of more people expressing their creativity makes the world gray." — it’s not your creativity, says the US copyright office and basic reasoning. You’re not Michelangelo, as much as you want to pretend to be. We have always had the ability to express ourselves, but that means to actually care for it, and going through the suffering of it.

" I'm not sure how that works. It hasn't turned a out that way with past changes Ike this." — this just blatant denial. How has it turned out for calligraphy? For ANYTHING that was automated? Again, is it the wives’ fault the king doesn’t care for them? You can’t respond to a SINGLE point, you’re completely stuck in the rationalization stage of the addiction. You haven’t even come close to refuting anything I’ve said.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/RichardAragon/NightshadeAntidote/issues/6#issuecomment-2106884179, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALWFJ6CRLWGCYC25XRGGZJ3ZCBWHNAVCNFSM6AAAAABHH2Y7LCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMBWHA4DIMJXHE . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>

[M4n0war]

Are you even reading what I write? Just stubbornly repeating the same mantras and refusing to see the big picture.

Is there anything we won’t be desensitized against if it’s produced en Masse? No. And you have yet to make ANY point to the contrary. It doesn’t matter what it is, whether it is the many wives and children of a king or beauty, only DEPTH can sustain interest.

"I don't particularly care about calligraphy, lace, carpeting, wall decor etc specifically. " you’re missing my point, which I have reiterated over and over again. It doesn’t matter WHAT it is, when it is automated, and we consume it shallowly, because it was produced shallowly, we get desensitized. You getting hung up on the examples is another dodging maneuver. We cared for these things for centuries, then it was automated, we stopped caring. What part of this is so difficult to grasp?

"Answer me this do you care about books? Or would you rather we not have them so we could have kept calligraphy more popular?" — more dodging. As I’ve said previously, you should handle technology with maturity and ask the question: is it really celebrating beauty, when I automate this? We are also not talking about something as mere as the printing press, we are talking about the truly endless pit of new content spat out by a program. A tidal wave of billions and billions of images. You have to be denying basic human nature if you think that embracing this in any way will lead to anything other than going: huh, I guess beauty doesn’t mean much.

"And if you care about calligraphy you can still go make as much of that as you want." — another dodge. Obviously, I can and I do, but I want to live in a world in which beauty is valued, because it uplifts the spirit, a world in which people believe in their own expression, even it isn’t as fancy as a model that contains the training data of far more experienced artists. A world in which beauty is worth the sacrifice.

"I think art today is better than it was in the cave painting era. So I think allowing and encouraging art to evolve is definitely the way to optimize the creation of beauty in the world." — incredible dodging. I’ve already explained to you all about the differences between cave painting and canvas painting vs ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE spitting out images at the push of a button. For thousands of years, there was a natural progression, styles changed and improved, but there has NEVER been a complete discarding of entire forms of artistic field as it has been with automation. Everything that is automated becomes devalued. What are you not getting about that?

"I care about art evolving into something better. " - how has that gone for architecture, or anything else that was automated? Name one (1) example of where automation hasn’t diminished the art form severely. If you can’t do that, you don’t have a leg to stand on.

"It sounds like if you had your way only the very rich would have art." — a pencil costs 10 cents. And paper 2 cent. Watercolor costs 20$, and that will last a year. The ones willing to make the sacrifice for art will have art.

"It sounds like if you had your way, we would not have paintings on canvas because what about the displaced art of cave painting..." — we’ve been over this! And this is just an absurd strawman. Of course art can progress, but there is NO case of automation where it has progressed. How did any of the examples I gave "progress”? And AI is not paint on canvas!

"As technology kills one art, it creates others." — right. Name the example where automation has not diminished our valuing of it. Also, do you like modern art? You know, the modern artists’ reaction to photography, that has completely abandoned aesthetics?

"This is good for art and beauty." — just keep repeating the mantra.

[miroku0000]

Desensitazation is not bad. You have yet to show any harms from it. Instead we see that densestion has lead to better deeper art and a better world. You say you value depth, buy without desensitization art stagnates and we do not get depth.

It is natural and good for outdated art to be devalued. If people didnt do this we would only have cave paintings. You already admitted that you value books, canvas paintings etc. You have not made any convincing argument why ai is any different.

In fact, outputting pictures at the push of a button has happened before. What do you think a camera is other than a device that produces pictures at the touch of a button. And as I already pointed out, it had a huge beneficial effect on art. There is no reason we should expect ai to be different.

You didn't seem concerned with realism being devalued by artists even though the movements that replaced it were far more beautiful.

I get that you are hypocritical about this. You are ok with devaluing cave paintings. You are fine with books decimating calligraphy. You are just irrationally attached to the creation of images from imagination. As this gets devalued art will definitely find better things to do. Just like or always has.

We should be careful how we apply ai technology to the world. Buy art will definitely benefit from it.

What you have failed to show is how desensitation is a bad thing. For art the desensitation of realism was the best thing that ever happened to it. You have not given me any reason to expect why ai will be different.

On Mon, May 13, 2024, 11:06 AM M4n0war @.***> wrote:

Are you even reading what I write? Just stubbornly repeating the same mantras and refusing to see the big picture.

Is there anything we won’t be desensitized against if it’s produced en Masse? No. And you have yet to make ANY point to the contrary. It doesn’t matter what it is, whether it is the many wives and children of a king or beauty, only DEPTH can sustain interest.

"I don't particularly care about calligraphy, lace, carpeting, wall decor etc specifically. " you’re missing my point, which I have reiterated over and over again. It doesn’t matter WHAT it is, when it is automated, and we consume it shallowly, because it was produced shallowly, we get desensitized. You getting hung up on the examples is another dodging maneuver. We cared for these things for centuries, then it was automated, we stopped caring. What part of this is so difficult to grasp?

"Answer me this do you care about books? Or would you rather we not have them so we could have kept calligraphy more popular?" — more dodging. As I’ve said previously, you should handle technology with maturity and ask the question: is it really celebrating beauty, when I automate this? We are also not talking about something as mere as the printing press, we are talking about the truly endless pit of new content spat out by a program. A tidal wave of billions and billions of images. You have to be denying basic human nature if you think that embracing this in any way will lead to anything other than going: huh, I guess beauty doesn’t mean much.

"And if you care about calligraphy you can still go make as much of that as you want." — another dodge. Obviously, I can and I do, but I want to live in a world in which beauty is valued, because it uplifts the spirit, a world in which people believe in their own expression, even it isn’t as fancy as a model that contains the training data of far more experienced artists. A world in which beauty is worth the sacrifice.

"I think art today is better than it was in the cave painting era. So I think allowing and encouraging art to evolve is definitely the way to optimize the creation of beauty in the world." — incredible dodging. I’ve already explained to you all about the differences between cave painting and canvas painting vs ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE spitting out images at the push of a button. For thousands of years, there was a natural progression, styles changed and improved, but there has NEVER been a complete discarding of entire forms of artistic field as it has been with automation. Everything that is automated becomes devalued. What are you not getting about that?

"I care about art evolving into something better. " - how has that gone for architecture, or anything else that was automated? Name one (1) example of where automation hasn’t diminished the art form severely. If you can’t do that, you don’t have a leg to stand on.

"It sounds like if you had your way only the very rich would have art." — a pencil costs 10 cents. And paper 2 cent. Watercolor costs 20$, and that will last a year. The ones willing to make the sacrifice for art will have art.

"It sounds like if you had your way, we would not have paintings on canvas because what about the displaced art of cave painting..." — we’ve been over this! And this is just an absurd strawman. Of course art can progress, but there is NO case of automation where it has progressed. How did any of the examples I gave "progress”? And AI is not paint on canvas!

"As technology kills one art, it creates others." — right. Name the example where automation has not diminished our valuing of it. Also, do you like modern art? You know, the modern artists’ reaction to photography, that has completely abandoned aesthetics?

"This is good for art and beauty." — just keep repeating the mantra.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/RichardAragon/NightshadeAntidote/issues/6#issuecomment-2108480071, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALWFJ6FG24YEDFD4I7CMC3DZCD6JPAVCNFSM6AAAAABHH2Y7LCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMBYGQ4DAMBXGE . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>

[M4n0war]

And still doesn’t have an argument.

"Desensitization isn’t bad" — when it occurs naturally, instead of completely overwhelming us.

"You have yet to show any harms from it." — I have already done that REPEATEDLY. Is the King being desensitized to his ten thousand wives and children going to cause a "deeper appreciation" of children and wives? And I’ve already told you about ANY art form being automated and then almost completely dying off. Which is going to happen to EVERYTHING that is overproduced and consumed shallowly.

MAKE. AN. ARGUMENT.

"What do you think a camera is other than a device that produces pictures at the touch of a button." — I have also been over this. And it killed photorealism, with a majority of artists completely ditching aesthetics. Do you like modern art?

"You didn't seem concerned with realism being devalued by artists even though the movements that replaced it were far more beautiful." — what are you talking about? Realism existed for CENTURIES when it wasn’t automated.

"You are fine with books decimating calligraphy." — I have responded to this! We should have been mature about it, instead of mass automating beauty, which is what ended up killing off the beauty of calligraphy.

"What you have failed to show is how desensitation is a bad thing. For art the desensitation of realism was the best thing that ever happened to it." — say the guy that most certainly prompts thousands of "photorealistic, painterly" images.

[miroku0000]

Ok. I guess we can either stick exclusively to cave paintings, or allow arts to die off to get better art in exchange. Tell me why cave painting is better than the plethora of art we have today.

Every time an art has died off it has been replaced with more and better arts. So again, there is no harm to some forms of art dying off. If no forms of art ever died off, art would stagnate.

Make an argument why stagnate art is better than the vibrant art we have today? Why is a world with only cave paintings better than what we have today? Why is a world without books better than what we have today? Desensitation has over and over lead to a better world even for art itself.

The more something makes a great deal of art obsolete, the better it is for the evolution of art. Have some faith in human creativity.

I guess we can agree to disagree about this. But I think the history of art is squarely on my side on the issue.

On Thu, May 16, 2024, 11:10 PM M4n0war @.***> wrote:

And still doesn’t have an argument.

"Desensitization isn’t bad" — when it occurs naturally, instead of completely overwhelming us.

"You have yet to show any harms from it." — I have already done that REPEATEDLY. Is the King being desensitized to his ten thousand wives and children going to cause a "deeper appreciation" of children and wives? And I’ve already told you about ANY art form being automated and then almost completely dying off. Which is going to happen to EVERYTHING that is overproduced and consumed shallowly.

MAKE. AN. ARGUMENT.

"What do you think a camera is other than a device that produces pictures at the touch of a button." — I have also been over this. And it killed photorealism, with a majority of artists completely ditching aesthetics. Do you like modern art?

"You didn't seem concerned with realism being devalued by artists even though the movements that replaced it were far more beautiful." — what are you talking about? Realism existed for CENTURIES when it wasn’t automated.

"You are fine with books decimating calligraphy." — I have responded to this! I’ve should have been mature about it, instead of mass automating beauty, which is what ended up killing off the beauty of calligraphy.

"What you have failed to show is how desensitation is a bad thing. For art the desensitation of realism was the best thing that ever happened to it." — say the guy that most certainly prompts thousands of "photorealistic, painterly" images.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/RichardAragon/NightshadeAntidote/issues/6#issuecomment-2116800767, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALWFJ6CEZDZLCM7D255NQLDZCWNPFAVCNFSM6AAAAABHH2Y7LCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMJWHAYDANZWG4 . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>

[M4n0war]

You can’t even read a single paragraph in? I don’t care how addicted you are to the dice roll, this is absurd. Let’s keep it single paragraph then.

"Desensitization isn’t bad" — when it occurs naturally, instead of completely overwhelming us. I have also already responded to your "cave painting" nonsense TWICE.

[M4n0war]

"I think the history of art is squarely on my side" — do you like that all text is now reduced to function, ignoring aesthetics completely? Do you like that most modern artists completely reject aesthetics? Do you like that houses, cars, furniture are now reduced to function?

[M4n0war]

Is the situation with the King with his ten thousand wives and twenty thousand children going to lead to "more appreciation of wives and children", or can that only happen in the complete rejection of shallowness and mass?

[miroku0000]

I think there is more art now than any time in history. It does not bother me that it is in different places than you want it to be.

Not all text is reduced to function completely. Graphic artists still exist amd you see their work all over. Even though calligraphy is not used much, there is much more graphic art now than there was caligtaphy before the printing press.

You can still buy custom furniture if you want. It is not like it doesn't exist. It just seems less common because a larger percentage of the population can afford more furniture when it is mass produced.

I am fine with modern artists rejecting aesthetics. I do like modern art. At least I think it is great to have so many different art styles spawned from rejecting realism.

I certainly wouldn't take away cameras from people just so we could make artists who want to do inferior realistic art feel better. Likewise I wouldn't take away generative ai because artists who want to make inferior images feel better.

On Thu, May 16, 2024, 11:45 PM M4n0war @.***> wrote:

"I think the history of art is squarely on my side" — do you like that all text is now reduced to function, ignoring aesthetics completely? Do you like that most modern artists completely rejected aesthetics? Do you like that houses, cars, furniture are now reduced to function?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/RichardAragon/NightshadeAntidote/issues/6#issuecomment-2116865048, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALWFJ6EU26EI3LUPFGX7MVTZCWRR7AVCNFSM6AAAAABHH2Y7LCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMJWHA3DKMBUHA . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>

[M4n0war]

"I think there is more art now than any time in history." — my argument is not about mass, it’s about depth and quality. Why are all your "positive examples" about mass? You know very well that I’m right in saying that function has completely overwhelmed aesthetics.

"You can still… but there is still" only affirms my point. We care less now than we ever did before.

[M4n0war]

"Likewise I wouldn't take away generative ai because artists who want to make inferior images feel better." — you have yet to respond to how AI images completely destroy the message they’re intended to convey. Only shallow people want to automate creation.

[M4n0war]

Is the situation with the King with his ten thousand wives and twenty thousand children going to lead to "more appreciation of wives and children", or can that only happen in the complete rejection of shallowness and mass?

[M4n0war]

The personal expression is always superior to what a program makes, the program only makes you stop caring.

[miroku0000]

How do ai images destroy the message they want to convey? That has not been my experience at all. For example, I want an image about whether Google ai model or open ai will be better. So I have ai generate an image of Two robots kick boxing in a ring. How does this destroy the message?

On Fri, May 17, 2024, 12:13 AM M4n0war @.***> wrote:

"Likewise I wouldn't take away generative ai because artists who want to make inferior images feel better." — you have yet to respond to how AI images completely destroy the message they’re intended to convey. Only shallow people want to automate creation.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/RichardAragon/NightshadeAntidote/issues/6#issuecomment-2116902805, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALWFJ6HOV3BYH63IIMZZUU3ZCWU2FAVCNFSM6AAAAABHH2Y7LCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMJWHEYDEOBQGU . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>

[miroku0000]

No. The drawing I could make is way worse than what ai makes. This is rhe common case. Very few people can outperform ai at drawing. Maybe 10 percent of the population. And even then it takes more than free and 5 minites.

On Fri, May 17, 2024, 12:15 AM M4n0war @.***> wrote:

The personal expression is always superior to what a program makes, the program only makes you stop caring.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/RichardAragon/NightshadeAntidote/issues/6#issuecomment-2116905753, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALWFJ6GF5AQUCFNFENIPGN3ZCWVCJAVCNFSM6AAAAABHH2Y7LCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMJWHEYDKNZVGM . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>

[M4n0war]

Wow, you've read a paragraph! Because the medium makes the message hollow. If you want to celebrate beauty, all you’re saying is that it’s not worth doing yourself, and that you care about the detail to the extent that you can write "intricate detail". We’ve also been over this. Are you amazed at AI-narrated videos have the most amazing AI graphics, or does it leave you cold? You can’t escape the impact of mass production.

[M4n0war]

But that drawing carries the message "even if this is not the most beautiful, it is worth it to me because I care about it that much. I don’t know how far I can get, but the pursuit of beauty is worth the suffering"

does the King love each of his ten thousand wives more than the peasant loves his one homely wife? Or does the King want ten thousand wives because he doesn’t love them very much?

[miroku0000]

Not all communication is about celebrating beauty. The most common case is having a picture generated by ai or no picture at all. It is not a matter of choosing between hiring an artist or using ai. It is about using a tool to help you express yourself, or expressing yourself in an even more hollow way without a picture. I don't see an ai generated picture as hollow at all.

The quality of many ai narrated videos is definitely not great. But that us just the growing pains of new tools. Also, this is mostly about the low quality of video generation tools which just auto select clip art and don't even generate the images used in the videos at all. So, yes, those tools suck and if you just use them with the default setting they make crappy videos.

Remember when we could first use fonts and styles and everyone used like 10 different fonts on everything? Or when your parents first learn to use email and they send you messages in all caps? But I certainly wouldn't take us back to the time when only newspapers and radio stations could convey their opinions to the world at scale.

For sure lowering the barrier for people to be able to express their ideas will result in a lot of low quality expression happening. But this will get better over time.

Still, i don't see anything inherantly shallow about using an ai generated image for communicating an idea when the other option is not using an image at all.

On Fri, May 17, 2024, 12:20 AM M4n0war @.***> wrote:

Wow, you've read a paragraph! Because the medium makes the message hollow. If you want to celebrate beauty, all you’re saying is that it’s not worth doing yourself, and that you care about the detail to the extent that you can write "intricate detail". We’ve also been over this. Are you amazed at AI-narrated videos have the most amazing AI graphics, or does it leave you cold? You can’t escape the impact of mass production.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/RichardAragon/NightshadeAntidote/issues/6#issuecomment-2116912715, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALWFJ6GORV4HQU5LM4JCXALZCWVUPAVCNFSM6AAAAABHH2Y7LCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMJWHEYTENZRGU . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>

[miroku0000]

To you it might convey that. To me, it it beautiful and conveys my idea perfectly or I just regenerate it. Almost no one can afford to paint a painting every time they want to communicate something visually. But then again, if you are writing about ai, it is perhaps thematically appropriate to use ai generated images. It would be kind of wrong to talk about how we should embrace ai technology and then use human created images for that.

On Fri, May 17, 2024, 12:23 AM M4n0war @.***> wrote:

But that drawing carries the message "even if this is not the most beautiful, it is worth it to me because I care about it that much. I don’t know how far I can get, but the pursuit of beauty is worth the suffering"

does the King love each of his ten thousand wives more than the peasant loves his one homely wife? Or does the King want ten thousand wives because he doesn’t love them very much?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/RichardAragon/NightshadeAntidote/issues/6#issuecomment-2116916773, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALWFJ6G5ULABSDF4NBRTHLLZCWV6ZAVCNFSM6AAAAABHH2Y7LCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMJWHEYTMNZXGM . You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: @.***>