I was thinking the other day how email programs are starting to integrate AI assistance for composing emails. I don’t think it’s a big leap to imagine that soon you’ll have an assistant writing some emails for you entirely. Then we’ll have AI bots talking to other AI bots without any human in the loop.
The internet as we know, will be ending completely atmost by 2024/2025. This will be true for western internet. I am a data preservationist and adept at data compression since over a decade. Me and my friend (100+ TB archivist) predicted this more than a year ago, and are just watching it all collapse.
Countries that ban this GPT crap and any bot scraping will manage to have a more organic internet with human users. Whoever does not will fail to limit internet as a communication tool, and ultimately also fail as a state and society.
The risk here is not just with text form, but also with images, audio and video generated by AI, completely killing the human creativity drive in society in long term. It is a reason I have refused to use any AI GPT style services.
I think GPT style AI is here to stay, and it’s now getting so cheap to run that anybody with a reasonably beefy machine can run it locally. With stuff like LoRA you can also combine existing trained models, so you don’t have to train these things from scratch either. Putting the toothpaste back in the tube isn’t really feasible at this point in my opinion. It’ll be interesting to see how human creativity develops along side this tech.
I personally disagree that this will kill human creative drive, I actually think this tech can allow a lot more people to express themselves. Lots of people have creative ideas but lack the skills to express them well. GPT allows anybody to easily bring their ideas to life and share them with others.
It is not that the AI will go away, but the integration has to be tightly controlled. It will be more interesting who manages to figure out the optimisation game, because I am close and I do not want to throw it away for free right now, considering most of my existing life has gone into it. Big Tech companies do operate on this kind of wavelength, like Facebook and Google right now. A bit off tangent but recently Google published something regarding open source AI models ending up better than their and OpenAI models in near future.
Creativity expression is a very dicey thing. The existing barriers may sound like too much but the existing barriers also systematically make it so people improvise on themselves and develop or polish academic rigour before being able to democratise their ideas and interpretations.
I do agree that there needs to be moderation over content in general, I’d argue that it’s not really an AI specific issue. Long before AI came to the scene there has been a problem with figuring out the quality of content and its validity. US famously uses the internet as a political weapon to push its propaganda and dominate the information sphere of other countries. AI is an amplifier and it lowers the barrier for content production.
You used to need a whole editorial stuff to pump out articles, and US has polished media companies whose sole goal is to churn out propaganda. This was difficult to compete with and to put out competing narratives. With tools like GPT it’s now much easier for anyone to put out their message and to make it look polished.
In terms of creativity, I’m going to point out that a lot of similar arguments were made when photography was invented. Artists derided photographers because they said it was too easy to create pictures with a camera. Eventually art adapted, and photography has evolved as an art form of its own. I expect similar will happen with AI assisted art.
With tools like GPT it’s now much easier for anyone to put out their message and to make it look polished.
The problem is there is no end to this kind of escalation. It may sound too moralistic, but it is the truth. Instead of trying to de-escalate the consequences of mastered propaganda matrix that USA throws on the world, now we are in a position battling it out.
As for artistry and photography, you are missing the issue here. OpenAl (GPT-3, GPT-4), Google (Bard), Microsoft (Clearview image database + current OpenAl partnership) have abused the lack of regulation and enjoyed protection under USA government. This has allowed them to scrape almost all of the internet we interact with in general, down to reddit. Artists not being paid anything for their scraped art, and in turn facing an optimised database machine that can churn out art in seconds for prompts, is not the same as s photographers and artists who mutually gave each other respect for their craft and did not interfere in each others’ space like this. There is a huge distinction.
I am very conflicted over what this colossal data scraping and manipulation of this data will end up in. I can say that it is not as progressive for technology in terms of ethics in the long term. And the existing barriers regarding creativity have a purpose – everyone is not supposed to do everything. A society of jack of trades wil never progress like one with few quality experts or craft masters. It only elevates the expertise baseline of society for a temporary phase, ultimately leading to stagnation, unless the issue of craft expertise is solved. Humans have a fundamental problem of ego, and instead of no knowledge, now people wil argue with half knowledge. Look at social media in the last decade, with just as many liberals being like conservatives, armchair-ing it out on internet or in podcasts.
I think there is a plateau to how far things can escalate in practice. The limitation is ultimately how much information humans can process throughout the day. It’s also worth noting that we’re already drowning in propaganda and junk information right now. I’m not sure that additional saturation of the information space will fundamentally change things.
And I agree with the unethical side of how models get trained, especially in the case of proprietary models. I would argue this is more of a capitalism problem than a technology problem though.
I imagine that in the end people are still going to specialize, and they will leverage these tools to automate a lot of tedious work in their professions. It’s never been the case that new sorts of technology and automation led to stagnation. The opposite is generally the case where there is a huge explosion in creativity and invention.
I do think that societies like China will make much better use of this tech than the west will though because there is a central direction over how the tech is used and what it’s directed towards.
I was thinking the other day how email programs are starting to integrate AI assistance for composing emails. I don’t think it’s a big leap to imagine that soon you’ll have an assistant writing some emails for you entirely. Then we’ll have AI bots talking to other AI bots without any human in the loop.
The internet as we know, will be ending completely atmost by 2024/2025. This will be true for western internet. I am a data preservationist and adept at data compression since over a decade. Me and my friend (100+ TB archivist) predicted this more than a year ago, and are just watching it all collapse.
Countries that ban this GPT crap and any bot scraping will manage to have a more organic internet with human users. Whoever does not will fail to limit internet as a communication tool, and ultimately also fail as a state and society.
The risk here is not just with text form, but also with images, audio and video generated by AI, completely killing the human creativity drive in society in long term. It is a reason I have refused to use any AI GPT style services.
I think GPT style AI is here to stay, and it’s now getting so cheap to run that anybody with a reasonably beefy machine can run it locally. With stuff like LoRA you can also combine existing trained models, so you don’t have to train these things from scratch either. Putting the toothpaste back in the tube isn’t really feasible at this point in my opinion. It’ll be interesting to see how human creativity develops along side this tech.
I personally disagree that this will kill human creative drive, I actually think this tech can allow a lot more people to express themselves. Lots of people have creative ideas but lack the skills to express them well. GPT allows anybody to easily bring their ideas to life and share them with others.
It is not that the AI will go away, but the integration has to be tightly controlled. It will be more interesting who manages to figure out the optimisation game, because I am close and I do not want to throw it away for free right now, considering most of my existing life has gone into it. Big Tech companies do operate on this kind of wavelength, like Facebook and Google right now. A bit off tangent but recently Google published something regarding open source AI models ending up better than their and OpenAI models in near future.
Creativity expression is a very dicey thing. The existing barriers may sound like too much but the existing barriers also systematically make it so people improvise on themselves and develop or polish academic rigour before being able to democratise their ideas and interpretations.
I do agree that there needs to be moderation over content in general, I’d argue that it’s not really an AI specific issue. Long before AI came to the scene there has been a problem with figuring out the quality of content and its validity. US famously uses the internet as a political weapon to push its propaganda and dominate the information sphere of other countries. AI is an amplifier and it lowers the barrier for content production.
You used to need a whole editorial stuff to pump out articles, and US has polished media companies whose sole goal is to churn out propaganda. This was difficult to compete with and to put out competing narratives. With tools like GPT it’s now much easier for anyone to put out their message and to make it look polished.
In terms of creativity, I’m going to point out that a lot of similar arguments were made when photography was invented. Artists derided photographers because they said it was too easy to create pictures with a camera. Eventually art adapted, and photography has evolved as an art form of its own. I expect similar will happen with AI assisted art.
The problem is there is no end to this kind of escalation. It may sound too moralistic, but it is the truth. Instead of trying to de-escalate the consequences of mastered propaganda matrix that USA throws on the world, now we are in a position battling it out.
As for artistry and photography, you are missing the issue here. OpenAl (GPT-3, GPT-4), Google (Bard), Microsoft (Clearview image database + current OpenAl partnership) have abused the lack of regulation and enjoyed protection under USA government. This has allowed them to scrape almost all of the internet we interact with in general, down to reddit. Artists not being paid anything for their scraped art, and in turn facing an optimised database machine that can churn out art in seconds for prompts, is not the same as s photographers and artists who mutually gave each other respect for their craft and did not interfere in each others’ space like this. There is a huge distinction.
I am very conflicted over what this colossal data scraping and manipulation of this data will end up in. I can say that it is not as progressive for technology in terms of ethics in the long term. And the existing barriers regarding creativity have a purpose – everyone is not supposed to do everything. A society of jack of trades wil never progress like one with few quality experts or craft masters. It only elevates the expertise baseline of society for a temporary phase, ultimately leading to stagnation, unless the issue of craft expertise is solved. Humans have a fundamental problem of ego, and instead of no knowledge, now people wil argue with half knowledge. Look at social media in the last decade, with just as many liberals being like conservatives, armchair-ing it out on internet or in podcasts.
/rant
I think there is a plateau to how far things can escalate in practice. The limitation is ultimately how much information humans can process throughout the day. It’s also worth noting that we’re already drowning in propaganda and junk information right now. I’m not sure that additional saturation of the information space will fundamentally change things.
And I agree with the unethical side of how models get trained, especially in the case of proprietary models. I would argue this is more of a capitalism problem than a technology problem though.
I imagine that in the end people are still going to specialize, and they will leverage these tools to automate a lot of tedious work in their professions. It’s never been the case that new sorts of technology and automation led to stagnation. The opposite is generally the case where there is a huge explosion in creativity and invention.
I do think that societies like China will make much better use of this tech than the west will though because there is a central direction over how the tech is used and what it’s directed towards.