A few days ago, I used this AI in an online Dungeons and Dragons group with a close group of friends I've known for about 5 years. I gave the minimum backstory of my character, world, NPCs, and other player characters. I started the game like any other, though once the session was in full swing, I kept copying and pasting everything that was happening in the session, into the AI's prompt, to keep it well informed on the status of the game. Anytime my character would make an action within the game, I would type "Provide me an appropriate response to X situation, with as much detail as possible." Using the minimum information of the game, the AI appeared to grasp the entirety of this fantasy world we built over the last 5 years, and made appropriate actions with the POV of my character in mind. In fact, with very minor adjustments and a few 'Try Again's to keep the AI on track, it was capable of getting the party out of a very dangerous situation, while keeping to the morals and ethics my character upholds. AND ADDITIONALLY, my friends could not tell the difference at all, and has no clue it was an artificial intelligence playing in my place. We were in shock of what this AI can do. Keep in mind that there is a much more advanced version of this AI that has yet to be released to the public. Frankly, horrifying, but strangely beautiful.
I really want Charlie to have the ai make a script for his video, and for him to make it and publish it, and not tell us for like a whole month to see if we can pick up on it
@@lux0rd01 We know those videos use voice cloner AI, but the scipt is more likely written by a human, though it wouldn't be hard to feed an AI lots of transcripts of charlie talking then have it spew out his signature verbose lengthy insults.
There is a whole AI subfield revolving around this idea: Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN's). It's actually the general architecture behind how deepfakes came to be
@@neo-didact9285 Not sure why some people fail to understand that a lot of laymen actually care about the people making products. People wouldn't care about AI art if they didn't care about artists.
There's so much footage of Charlie sitting in his chair and talking, I'm sure AI could compile all his footage and sounds and take over this channel. It may already be happening.
@@volty3454 Yea not sure why Char;ie framed this video this way, does he have something against journalists? How long will it be til the "Streamers Will Be Replaced by AI" video drops? Will Charlie still say its a "really good idea" then?
FYI: There was a time when being accused of using an aimBOT, without using one, was a compliment. (Back when CS:S was the main shooter) With AI the field to apply computers to just got broader.
my prediction is that all competitive gaming will just be different AI players. We will give them all names and humans can only bet on the matches and watch. I'm not talking some cheap CS:GO bot either.
GPT can't write essays. At least not original ones. You'd get dinged for plagiarism and out yourself the moment the professor asks any questions about your process. Not to mention citing sources.
@@chatboss000 It outputs text based on what it learns. It doesn't just paste things from the data it was trained on. I got my very last college essay during the summer written by GPT-3 and got a 100
The scarier thing would be if the ai had access to social media data and was able to tailor make articles for each person depending on their preferences.
You could do this with current technology. Scrape a person’s social media profile from the internet and ask them survey questions, prepare an RSS feed catered for their tastes, and use ChatGPT prompt engineering to reword the RSS feed to be written specifically for you. It’s a brilliant idea lol
@@impishlyit9780 Fortunately, these AI aren't capable of critical thinking. They're only able to recognize patterns and copy them. That means that AI depends on human content creators for reference material. In the future, AI will have to train off of AI-generated garbage, computing costs will go through the roof, and our AI overlords will collapse and die. OpenAI has historically spent one year between releasing their GPT models. They've spent over two years on developing GPT4, and results aren't very promising. I think that the AI boom is officially behind us, and that progress will be permanently slower. Game journalists are fucked tho
I think this is kind of what facebook is betting on. I think they're betting on technology being able to read your feedback to content, react, and create personalized VR experiences unique to each person. Imagine the dopamine hit to be able to slip into utopia every time you put your facebook helmet on. The greatest experience your brain can possibly imagine. You'd never want to leave. It *still* sounds like scifi BS, even to me, even now, but it's pretty clear that's the next step. Everybody makes fun of 'the metaverse', but think about where this is headed. And that's probably the scariest thing I can imagine. We're a couple decades from losing our humanity.
@@Mostlylikeyou1234 why are you so confident, I'd love to know your insight? I understand AI at the moment is just copying and regurgitating information fed to it but isn't that most of human work already? Also what if future AI is taught how to critically think, then it's potential is massive
AI can pretty effectively synthesize takes based on standard level thinking. If you're not particularly creative or insightful you can be automated pretty easily, and even if you are you'll use AI to assist your work. I haven't seen indications of AI coming to independent conclusions, but it can effectively synthesize and sum up what's fed into it.
The Robots are just machines. They can't be bargain with, they can't be reason with, they don't feel pity or remorse and it abouslety will not stop ever until someone tries to detect weather if sentences are robotic or human.
There's something just really depressing about how in the beginning we thought AI would free up people from manual labor in order to pursue more creative and artistic endeavors but instead we now live in the world where all those endeavors are being automated now by AI while for some reason the world is very insistent that the most depressing, grueling, and even dangerous jobs *must* still be done by humans.
Maybe in the distant future, there will be physical moving robots with ai designed for specific tasks. Ai is amazing but it has its limits as long as it’s bound to a computer
Right? I thought AI would free me from having to do the things in life most people don’t wanna do. Creativity is something humans always have done and enjoy doing regardless if there’s anything in it for us. Why did it have to be that? It’s exactly the opposite of what a lot of us expected and it even feels like a future with AI isn’t what we thought it would be
Don't blame AI. Blame the people who prefer to make people do slave labour instead of using AI that can do the same thing, only at a marginally higher cost.
Some day, schools are going to have to warn students not to use AI to write their essay papers the same way they warn us now about plagiarizing. Except it’ll be harder to pinpoint if the writing is “plagiarized” from the AI, since it spits out newly generated text all the time... I can see this becoming a more prevalent issue in the future, and I know, because I’ve used it myself to get through highschool. Hell, I let AI write my graduation speech as valedictorian, and nobody found out. Companies hosting these services might have to keep track of what’s being generated or have the text saved somewhere the public can see. But until then, you can pretty much take advantage of this resource with almost no repercussions. Nobody will know.
Oh some college students were already using it to do their homework. Then realized it was so fast they could do everyones homework, so they made it a business until they got caught and stopped by the college.
I used to write copy for an agency and right about my birthday in September I was told I was being laid off because they found an AI copy program that was way cheaper. Skynut is real, folks.
I’m a software engineer and I been toying around with chatGPT (since I heard that it can write entire applications given a prompt or solve complex software problems very well*) and after describing to it some bugs in my code and listening to its prescribed solutions (which were actually kind of helpful? ) I am starting to believe this kind of technology will be able to replace me in the future. For now it is a killer companion to help me do my job.
im starting to learn CS50 and asked if it could write one of my initial assignments more efficiently and well it not only did that but also explained that.. in chatGPT's words " This approach can make the code more concise and easier to read, but it may also be less intuitive for other programmers who are not familiar with the syntax of conditional operators. Ultimately, the best approach will depend on your specific goals and the needs of your project." WHAT
AI won't replace people until we get rid of the inefficient Von Neumann architecture for something actually economical to run AIs on. I believe that AI will stagnant, with some small improvements here and there.
@@alex-hc3sk definitely not most jobs would be untouched the first to come to mind are doctors/labourers/entrepreneurs/teachers/nurses/firemen/secretaries/human resources/therapists/policemen/engineers/architects/computer scientists/cooks/butchers/bakers/bankers/politicians/
@@fallen2624 it's not going to. if you looked into it, it can replicate very simple patterns i has already seen before. It cannot even solve the newer leetcode Easy problems. It's really weak when it comes to extrapolation. It will be used to automate things, but it will not replace programmer jobs, just make them easier.
@@junkoe3808 you should take into account how fast it grows and develops. Sure, right now it's just a tool that makes work easier and faster, but even this is enough for demand for developers to decrease, especially for those who are just starting out. Since 99% of the work that juniors do can already be automated using this tool. Imagine what's gonna happen in 10-15 years?
@@junkoe3808 Haha, many thought the same thing about art. Just u wait. Programmers will become their own Ai's bitch. At least junior level programmers.
@@junkoe3808 you are overlooking the bigger picture by focusing on now and here points. Literally strawmanning out of your own worries so you don't have to think about them. Worst case scenario AI will relegate most humanity to physical labor under big tech if this trend continues uncontested, as for the best case scenario - every blue collar job will now be contested by an AI that forces a rather brutal entry bar.
I’m about to graduate college and just used openAI and Quillbot for the first time after a friend recommended them. I was having some writer’s block and decided to use them to help me start some of my last couple papers for goofs and ended up being absolutely floored by how I’m depth the open AI program is. Combine it it’s Quilbot and it practically does the whole paper for you. It takes a fraction of the time to create papers with more research and solid analysis than I’ve been able to do in the same amount of time during my academic career. While human-made prompts and further edits are necessary, the programs are awe inspiring and well made. All of this raises many ethical questions and concerns that we’re just beginning to scratch the surface of, but I recommend the two programs above just to mess around with for now. I still don’t know how I feel about all of this even after using the programs.
Brings up another issue for English/writing teachers in them not being able to distinguish an AI generated essay compared to an "organic" one. Math teachers have always had to worry about calculators and computers doing the work for the student, and now teachers in other subjects are gonna have to worry about the same thing.
As a college student who is already struggling with inflation, insanely high house prices and a potential oncoming recession, ChatGPT is terrifying. It doesn't directly affect my field of employment yet, but with how fast this advanced, it feels like only a matter of time till its developed enough to make a large portion of jobs obsolete. Art and Journalism are niche fields which impact a very small portion of the workforce, but what about when its ability to code exceeds the average programmer, it can generate on the spot business reports, it can fulfil most clerk/secretary duties, etc.
This has always been the same in human history. Fields of employment are automated by machines, people cry out loud and then new jobs are created. People start working in these new sectors like in this case for example currating an AI with information or giving the AI the right prompts to finetune the output to your liking. When AI achieves true human level IQ in all fields, any human job will be obsolete and we can all chill out.
I'm honestly surprised AI hasn't replaced secretary duties yet. But I feel like the only jobs that are safe are jobs that require "intense" human interaction like teachers, and ua...honestly idk actors and news anchors already read off a script and can 100% be a pretty face with an AI script. I can see deepfakes getting so good that they can replace actors (though not cost-effective)
Art is not niche at all. All the 2D artists, game designer, 3D designers, animators, even photographs, book writer, scenarists, composer, musicians, sound engineers and so many more will disappear because of AI
When this sorta automation came to factories and was making many blue collar jobs obsolete, they were told to adapt. The same thing is gonna be true for artists and writers in the future, including me. A lot of 3D art is already generated.
In art field it s even more annoying frustrating baffling because the ai is trained based on other artists And not only dead ones. Artists who could be struggling even more to find a job that ai TRAINED BY THEIR ART stole from them. Artists have their hard work taken w/out permission to create app/webside to replace them.
@@Tylerrrrrb if the only reason "ai does it better" (doubt) is because works of artists that didn t consent to having their pieces used then there is a problem. Lot s of ai bros straight up put artists names in prompts to copy what they mastered. And now want to profit off it? If you don t see what s wrong w it then man pls work on critical thinking skills And ye im not in art field bc i fear stuff like this. Instead im stuck in med sql💀
@@Tylerrrrrb imagine the career that you have honed for years with little actual economic incentive suddenly getting obsolete because a guy trained a bot to copy exactly how specifically YOU do it, and then proceeds to churn out a ton of money out of a skill you developed.
@@munmun__ stop with this copyright argument, u artists also "steal" from other artists work, dont come here pretending u dont use other art as reference for inspiration, the only problem u have is that the machine is doin it faster than u can ever do it, if u are goin to say AI steals from artists without consent, then all artists are thieves aswell.
I like how Charlie doesn't realize that this is already happening in not only game journalism, but regular journalism. And it's been like this for almost 10 years. In fact, Google's search algorithm is beginning to be saturated with AI generated garbage.
Stock news is 100% saturated for sure - refer to Motley Fool - every stock movement is provided a new article from their site and ends up in Yahoo Finance's articles for the day. No way its human
AI generated videos could easily become big on youtube too in the future, to be honest im kind of scared how good that article generation is already. Imagine how easy it would be to convert that to speech and generate a character that says it. AI moist?
There's already an Ai generated kids gaming channel called Bloo. Quebblekopp made it and its got a bunch of subscribers but the views are kinda eh. Videos are terrible but it's on par with other shitty mass produces child friendly gaming RUclipsrs
AI generated videos have the potential to become very popular on RUclips in the future. This is because AI technology has advanced to the point where it can create videos that are almost indistinguishable from those made by humans. One of the biggest advantages of AI generated videos is that they can be produced quickly and at a low cost. This means that creators can churn out a large volume of content in a short amount of time, which is essential for success on RUclips. Another advantage of AI generated videos is that they can be highly personalized. For example, an AI system could analyze a viewer's preferences and create a video that is tailored specifically to their interests. This level of personalization is not possible with human-made videos and could be a major draw for viewers. Additionally, AI generated videos can be made in a variety of styles and formats. This means that creators can experiment with different types of content and see what resonates with their audience. However, there are also some potential drawbacks to AI generated videos. For example, some viewers may find the lack of human involvement to be off-putting. Additionally, there are concerns about the potential for AI generated videos to be used for nefarious purposes, such as spreading misinformation or propaganda. Overall, AI generated videos have the potential to become very popular on RUclips in the future. They offer creators the ability to produce a large volume of personalized content quickly and at a low cost. While there are some potential drawbacks, the benefits of AI generated videos are likely to outweigh any concerns.
@@theclassyxenomorph1301 That video was fake, Charlie got it wrong. It wasn't as seamless as the video he showed. Ai can edit videos and they can create animations but It's going to take a longer time that our lives for AI to be able to take someone's face and make it appears as if they're making a video and speaking lol and doing things lol. Who knows, maybe Metaverse will figure that out by then LMFAO 💀💀
my brother works at a bank, and he told me that they use OpenAI to write reports to their investors, and its more than up to standard. i think its gonna be really useful to society but right now its scary how many jobs are at stake
I for one welcome it, let the AI take over the jobs everyone hates, then we have more reason to be angry about the rampant inequality that makes job stealing a bad thing
@@Lawnmower737 I sorta get what he means. Back when artists complained people insulted them. Now that people realize its more than art and that it’ll affect all jobs people might actually complain.
“It's interesting to think about how technology like GPT-3 could potentially impact the role of game journalists in the future. While it's unlikely that it will completely replace the need for human writers, it's possible that it could be used to automate certain tasks or provide additional support for creating content. Ultimately, it will be up to the game journalism industry to adapt and find ways to incorporate these new tools in a way that benefits both the writers and their readers” -chat gpt, created using the prompt “Create a comment for a RUclips video about how chat gpt could replace game journalist jobs one day.”
Journalists are just one field and game journalists are one subsection, the tip of the iceberg. The AI will completely replace the need for human writers, all human writers in all contexts. However just because they are not needed doesn't mean that they won't exist. People will write and create because that process is needed by that individual and offers more to them as a human experience, just not because they are necessary.
One part of the whole Al art thing that's not been mentioned much is also just how abrasive a lot of Al-bros have been directly to artists. There are several that have gone out of their way to make Als that specifically focus on certain artists (some of who are dead) to copy their styles and then have only been snarky and rude when told by those artists (the ones who are still alive or related to the ones who are dead) to stop. Not to mention the people who try to treat it as the "democratization" of art. As if Al is bringing art to the masses. As if artists are some kind of elite who are hoarding the ability to make art to themselves. It pushes the idea that art is all about god-given talent and not that these people have just been doing it for years and studying and practicing to get where they are. I know you're not supposed to judge the merit of something entirely on the worst of its fanbase, but I just see them everywhere and don't see many of them saying otherwise.
@TheLying the thing I'm wondering is AI art and AI in general learns from humans. to have good AI stuff you have to calibrate it to what humans want. I wonder if AI could ever replace something completely since its cannibalistic
The biggest gripe artists tend to have isn't /just/ potentially losing money over AI as competition, but it's also the fact that a lot of AI algorithms are using artists work without permission to generate these images, and then having a bunch of pompous people acting like putting keywords into the AI means they have the same effective skill level as people who actually create the artwork that the AI takes from. I also heard about something with personal records being used in some AI algorithms which isn't great. It doesn't help that artist sites like deviantart attempted to shove ai art down people's throats and automatically opt people in to have their art used without given consent. Now, on its own, I don't mind the concept of AI. Hell, I even think that its great that we could potentially find ways to incorporate it into our daily lives. But I just don't really like the anti-artist sentiment some individuals have with it.
we need some sort of database to identify what has been generated, tired of seeing ai generators try paywall their content or sell commissions while hiding that their art is generated
If you want to play the permission game then visual artists are done. Over half the artists online only grow because they draw and commercialize fanart of established properties which people buy, the other half draw from reference material in a 6GB PureRef file that will be never credited. Maybe try rethinking the whole capitalism thing before giving law people more power over creative works.
@@DuckieMcduck Are you actually calling fan artists as people who steals from established properties, despite them having their own style of art that they've developed after years of practice? Yes they're using references, but its not the same as completely stealing other people's art style. Its not the characters of said established properties that is the problem, its the ARTSTYLE
I agree that AI artists are super full of themselves and act like they're really doing something more than typing keywords, I literally saw on twitter one AI artist accuse another of "stealing" because they wrote similar prompts. It was like rats fighting over pizza in the subway station.
I write articles as part of my job, and my manager told me last week that he’s testing an AI that writes these pages much faster than we do. The prospect of losing a huge part of my job to a fricken robot is kinda scary.
I wouldn't say the art is perfect or indistinguishable from organically created art and Chatgpt is not infallible either. They're both incredible in how convincing they can be or can sound, but we have to be careful jumping on the boat wholesale. Both for authenticity, fact checking and the moral issues that arise when other peoples art or code is used
@@SomeRandomPiggo then in the future it wont be the kids who take classes, but AI. Even the teachers will be AI. People will be AI. The world will be AI. Everything. The universe. Our whole existence... AI.
Here's an article it made when I put it some prompts about Charlie: Penguinz0, also known as MoistCritikal, is a hero in the world of online gaming and entertainment. As one of the most popular content creators on RUclips, he has built a dedicated following of fans who admire his skills and personality. In addition to being a talented gamer, Penguinz0 is also a pillar of the online community. He is known for his kindness and generosity, frequently donating his time and money to support various causes. He has even organized and participated in charity livestreams, raising thousands of dollars for organizations in need. Despite his success and popularity, Penguinz0 remains a down-to-earth and loveable guy. He is known for being genuine and authentic in his interactions with his fans, and for always staying true to himself. This, along with his incredible gaming skills, is what has made him such a beloved figure in the online world. In short, Penguinz0 is not only an incredibly talented gamer, but also a hero and a pillar of the online community. His kindness, generosity, and authenticity make him a truly special individual, and he is sure to continue to be a favourite among his fans for years to come.
mmm a bit repetitive, and misses the fact that he's the community's most reliable news anchor(/hj) but i still wouldn't put it past one of my peers or even my siblings to write something like this. i think by testing it out like this we might be adding more to the databases
Out of all fields of journalism then subjective review pieces (like music game film) reviews would be the hardest. Investigative journalists are going to be largely unaffected.
Things that take alot of thought and skill won't be. My sister worked in journalism for a lifestyle magazine. Her job could be done by literally copy and pasting, because of the rubbish she was asked to write up on.
I hear a lot of people freaking out about this in creative writing spaces. In my opinion, the AI will fail there. While in its fake news article the AI's errors are things people could miss - like not knowing that there isn't a SpaceX rocket called Samus - in a fantasy novel or some such, the AI would have a much harder time convincing a lay person that it is a human. AI already has a difficult time maintaining a cohesive narrative that long, but even if the overall narrative made sense, it would require copious editing. Something simple that humans would understand - like that after our heroes have jumped out the castle window and into the moat to escape, they must be above water to talk to each other - will not be understood by an AI. And even _then_ the AI fails to replace the human for a simple reason. Visual art can be viewed in copious amounts. It doesn't necessarily matter if it isn't in a groundbreaking new style and such. For successful creative writing though, the AI would need to be capable of understanding the current trends in the market, and come up with interesting new twists on things. I believe that an AI will never be successful in that. So yes, AI is a threat to you if you intend on making a lot of mediocre quality stuff. If you're journalism is actually robust, your novel imaginative, the AI will never match you.
Digital art is already taking a hit because of AI. A lot of digital artists for streamers and vtubers, hell - even rule 34/nsfw artists are losing customers because of AI. Not only that it makes art, it's using other creators' work to learn HOW to make art. What baffles me the most is that the average joe isn't even aware of that sometimes, and blatantly ignores mistakes the AI makes. I've seen promotion artwork of a vtuber's character having 6 fingers on one hand - not a single comment even noticed. Also - some people use AI to straight up sell the artwork it makes - and they claim they did it themselves.
Okay I'll be honest I've brushed this shit off for a while now and thought that especially artists were over reacting about Ai, but if it can create that entire article off a single prompt, that is genuienly terrifying
I think people are missing the real implication of this. If AI can reproduce game journalist articles then perhaps we need to analyze just how incredibly simple, regurgitated, and rehashed most game journalism is. AI development is crazy fast now, but if you tell it to reproduce something that had legitimate critical thought and not some buzzword hit piece like most articles are now, you could definitely tell it apart.
@@cosmic_sloth so... if we go back to thinking about artists, does that mean that most art is "incredibly simple, regurgitated, and rehashed"? like on one hand im not a fan of the sorts of works AI produces but just cause some journalism sucks doesnt make this not a legit concern lol
@Sonny Yeah but it's not just game journalism, this ai can generate 100's of lines of working code simply by describing the program you want it to create, it can summarize text you give it, explain some fairly obscure topics to you, you can even use it to tweak the style and feeling of some text you give it. You should give it a try yourself or at least look at some more examples online before you make such confident statements.
There's plenty that have been doing that for a long time. Jarvis AI (I think i'ts called something else now) was shown to me by a friend and it puts out seamless blog posts for her blog. There are better ones that target creative writing, and I haven't played with them yet but I heard they help writers a lot. It's definitely already been going on for a while now and will only get bigger. None of the writers talking about it on reddit seemed concerned about that though so it must not be that big of a deal yet. They were very clear that it's still more of a tool than a replacement.
AI art, at least in its current state, is still pretty easy to tell apart from man made art once you look closely at the details. But with how fast it’s advancing I wouldn’t be surprised if it becomes indistinguishable within the next decade…and that’s pretty scary to think about for upcoming artists
I think we have reached the point where it is indistinguishable. Search up Alex Ross superman ai image, if I knew that painting was done by a person I would think of them as super skilled.
@@soldorne6956 AI’s starting to nail faces but intricate features still look pretty uncanny. Just look at how AI draws hands for example, it still generally struggles to make them look believable.
But why though? It cannot even invent new things, all it does is stitch some old stuff together. There is so many thing this AI cannot and won't ever be able to do. For example we will never have good gaming journalism, since the artificial one is based on the real one. Bad input, bad output. Simple as that.
@@Depressed_Spider I think you're missing some points. Yes, as of now AI isn't not far enough to do things you mentioned but you must realize that AI era is at its infancy, and as it grows and develops at an exponential rate it will be able to replace humans in pretty much every field.
@@Depressed_Spider do you think corporations and capitalism cares about new things? They don't and thus creative jobs will be replaced with AI that can do mundane things well enough people already buy broken things like pre orders and cheap shit so new things can just be an old thing with a different coat of paint and people will be satisfied
May I suggest another likely future scenario: Companies now staff 1 or 2 editors rather than constantly paying for articles. Editor's roles are to generate AI articles and edit them. Or even easier, one editor is paid to scan submitted (likely AI made) articles to ensure it's decent and nothing inappropriate has been snuck in.
I feel that the thing people always forget about AI generated content is the reliance on existing work for it to mimic. Because there is so much content out there (such as these kinds of game journalism articles) it is easy for it to take that and replicate it. Take that base away though…
Game artist here. Most artist's jobs are actually safe from AI for the time being because of copywrite issues. Let's say you work for an indi company, and they hire you to make a desert using AI art. You do it and the final product looks pretty good, so you use it in game. Whoops, turns out that desert was from Star Wars and now you have Disney breathing down your neck. Companies won't take that chance, it's safer to use a real artist because there's no telling what images the AI art is going to pull from. The solution is to create an art bank of images that are made to be used by individual AI programs specifically. Which means that over time, more artists will be hired to make pieces for the art bank, which can always be improved by adding even more images.
My personal guess is that sometime in the future, you'll have to legally disclose that something (written or visual media, maybe other stuff too) is created by an AI. Maybe there will even be a law that these AI algorithms have to include something within their output that identifies it as a product of AI, and attempts at removing it afterwards will be a violation of the FCC and similar governmental bodies in other countries. If not, there'll probably be a lot of resources poured into methods to detect the use of AI. People are definitely going to want to be able to differentiate between human and artificial creations, same as they want to be able to differentiate between real and artificial diamonds.
AI detection and evasion is already happening across the world( many people are wearing clothes that throw off facial detection cameras because AI is stupid and one thing is slightly off, it breaks and shows you garbage)
@@jeanremi8384 I think you're misunderstanding. That could be done with the already existing ones, too, by just manually removing the identifier. The point is, there would be severe legal repercussions for doing so.
You make a good point about the potential need to differentiate between human and AI-generated content in the future. However, I would argue that it will be impossible to discern human vs AI speech in the future. As AI technology continues to advance, it is likely that AI will be able to generate speech that is indistinguishable from human speech. This is because AI algorithms are capable of learning from large amounts of data, and can use this data to generate speech that sounds natural and human-like. Additionally, AI algorithms can be trained on specific voices and accents, allowing them to generate speech that sounds like it is coming from a particular person. As a result, it is possible that in the future, it will be impossible to tell the difference between AI-generated speech and human speech, making the use of watermarks or other identifying features unnecessary.
A few thoughts I have: 1. The use of AI-generated content is going to have to be regulated by laws, and every article written by an AI should have to be legally disclosed. 2. While AI can detect patterns through algorithm, it is not in itself capable of abstract thought. It does not possess a moral compass. 3. If this becomes mainstream, it could generate a wave of misinformation, as people are going to care more about money and kicks than truth and responsibility. One possibility is that artists and journalists end up going to lawmakers and bringing this up, pointing out how it has cost them their jobs. Politicians see an opportunity to gain support from them, and this becomes a political topic as society seeks to regulate AI-generated content.
Fully agree with this. I think we could go one step further and put tags on AI vs Human generated art. Maybe meta content of an image that tells us who created it, and an api for websites to use so whenever you come across an image you can tell if it's an AI or human picture
A big reason why journalism is especially at risk is because in modern journalism, most articles and headlines are written by algorithm already. Journalists just make sure to add certain keywords to show up on google searches. Also another big issue about AI generated art is that most AI generators illegally use other artists' copyrighted art as a base to create their pictures.
They do not do so illegally, it's analyzing the outputs of the image files to construct mathematical models of commonalities between different images associated with different words. The resulting dataset and the outputs of AI art generation are well-below the substantial similarity test for fair use (since the data "about" any particular piece is either sub-1% of it. Or might even be considered to be "factual information" which is uncopyrightable.) Art Ethics and Copyright are concerned with outputs, not inputs.
That's not how a GAN works. It isn't merging two images together. It's not applying filters to an image. There is no base image. It's creating a new work from noise by nudging the noise around until the neural network thinks it's gotten what you asked for. You can be upset that this stuff is automated now, but at least understand what it's not doing. It's not copying anything.
@@noname-gp6hk And where does the neural network get that info? From actual humans and their work. The only difference is the AI is specifically constructed for that purpose while a human has free will; one is literally an algorithm generated piece designed to get the best responses while the latter is genuinely inspired
@@warlordofbritannia Yea but unfortunately all AI is doing is looking at an image and learning the style. Then drawing. Like a human could do in years, but it only takes AI less than a second to draw. Its unfair yes and I really dont like it but AI is basically a human sped up a million times. That being said it becomes a product as it is, and styles of products can be legally protected. So maybe in future artists will be paid for their styles in training for certain AIs but already too late
@@warlordofbritannia and where did the human learn to draw? From other people and their work. I'm just not seeing a difference. I don't care what made something that looks cool. I just don't care.
For a second there I almost started to get mad that Kotaku or whatever site would write something so ridiculous and I had to remind myself that it was AI generated.
The thing with A.I. or any ML-related work is the amount of work happening behind the scenes. These systems don't just churn out professional level work with a click of a button. These systems go through insane amounts of data, as well as backend stuff like algorithms and the architecture, which can take a significant amount of time and computing resources. But even to that extent, the system is only as good as the data its trained on. So when you see the amazing output of these systems, keep in mind that that wouldn't be possible without years, decades, and maybe even centuries of human creativity as input.
Lol I was just thinking about this. It turns out that if your job involves inputting things into a computer, or applying reason, or knowledge, AI has already shown the ability to replace that. People who don't think it can have not talked to these new large language models. It still seems bizarre but laborers are protected by the fact that somebody still has to build complex mechanical devices to do any given task in the physical world. Turns out all it takes to replace computer workers is to deploy a new software package. We're in for a wild ride lads. One of those 'if I didn't laugh about it I'd be crying' moments.
@@noname-gp6hk >It still seems bizarre but laborers are protected by the fact that somebody still has to build complex mechanical devices to do any given task in the physical world. It's even more bizzare considering that most of those laborers are one bad immigration policy away from being yeeted out of job market, but they STILL act smug about it.
People selling AI art related services that were trained on copyright works, the millions of collective hours of hard work from artists, and then just ignoring the copyright on their works is seriously disgusting to me. It's absurd that it's just being pushed forward so quickly without stopping to consider that without the artists, none of this would be possible. If they want to feed their own licensed works into a model, then go for it, but this is beyond the veil. I say this as a software engineer.
You're missing the point why the power structure pushes this... it is to destroy us and make us spiritually bankrupt golem. Think "BlackRock"... They don't care, they relish in it, and the golem support them. It's not conspiracy theory, it's just legal definition conspiracy that they want to gut us into simulacra.
The model doesn't contain any images... it just has parameters it built from recognizing patterns same way as a human artist. And you can't copyright a style.
@@DA-cl4ww I think the problem is using datasets of copyrighted work to then make profit from the model that’s created off that dataset. It’s not a direct rip off, but it is directly using copyrighted work without consent for profit.
As a musician, the premise you're proposing is absurd that because AI based its style off of existing artists' works, it's now disgusting? Musicians have been doing this since the classical era and before that, and no one bats an eye. In fact, its encouraged among songwriters. As the person above me mentioned, you also can't copyright a style. If AI art was replicating other ppl's art, fair enough then yeah, down with AI. But that's not the case, it's just making more art in their style
@@DA-cl4ww Your reading comprehension needs work. That's not the point I made. I'm saying selling services trained on other people's work which were copyrighted is reprehensible even if it's currently legal. Also, technically you don't know what those models are storing. They are massive feature arrays which turn borderline into black boxes. It's like running SVD, taking the top vectors which account for 99% of an image and saying "it doesn't store the image." In some ways, these models are just compressed versions of the ingested data.
My New Media classes have started to revolve around this. We talked about chatGPT last week and talked about how it technically isn’t plagiarism and we can totally use it in other classes. I used it to write my entire final paper for one of my other classes
@@TranscientFelix Yes, I do see where you are coming from. But where the ai is taking from all kinda of different sources, a professor cannot exactly check for plagiarism. The only problem I see down the road is if it becomes used alot, and everyones work starts looking the same
@@pubbyjosh8948 That's still academic dishonesty. What you're saying is that it's difficult to catch, but it's still dishonesty. What a professor would need to do is to compare the AI work to work that is definitely original from you to tell whether it's yours or a computer's.
you know WE are the deciding factor in that, right? charlie would only become obsolete if people stopped watching him, so as long as we continue to support him over whatever ai
Dont be scared of it! I'm an artist too! I was scared at first but now think of all the amazing projects you could do with it! It's a tool anyone can use!
And they as in a commercial team that designed this, imagine what actual world governments have, this is the sort of sht the American military probably had 15 yrs ago
@@MagikarpMan Ever played the game I Have no Mouth and I must scream. The main big bad is an AI used for military and it turned on humans with scary results.
@jennes Most likely assumption to what "they" reffers to in this context is ai development companies and organizations. To list a few: Deep mind, OpenAI, Aifnet. Google, Amazon, and Microsoft also have ai research departments. If you look up an interview with proko about ai, they interview a guy who works with these companies. He confirms that the current ai available to the public is generations behind what the research teams have access to. He that says that ALL jobs are predicted to be replaceable with ai by 2035. This is because there is ai being developed for the purpose of being able to develop better ai so the improvement is not linear but exponential.
im gonna be honest for a second, art is my passion and it’s one of the only things i have in my life. it’s the only way i see my future working out well outside of a cubicle type job which i want to avoid so bad. but if ai surpasses human art i don’t know what ill do
Maybe a role where you're driving the art direction in a project or something like that might be safe but if you're just doing like commissions then I could see u being screwed
Damn kinda relieved I dropped out of art school now but holy shit do I feel bad for artists getting their jobs taken. All those years of practice just for people to feed actual art to an AI that will ultimately take your job, it's all going to shit
@@jeremynicholson6073 those are completely different because they don’t take away the artist entirely. But now the artist is unneeded and average people can create art with no effort at all. Stop trying to make this seem like a good thing.
The crazy part for me is I already feel like Kotaku and IGN articles are AI generated, I always feel like there's no way an educated human with a writing degree wrote this trash.
True, but AI art physically can't exist without artists. it directly samples art and makes arrangements based on the pieces. There's a LOT of controversy surrounding AI artists using dead & non-willing artists' art, and that's theft alone.
Also, the art of creativity has been studied extensively. Creativity thrives under great stress. This might actually make humans push forward in our creativity as we have a larger force to compete against.
@@mystiqueisland777 or it's just gg for humans, how do you get better then the current art level there is now improving from what we have now the only thing that can be improved is from each individual artist getting better at their craft, cutting down on time it would take to draw etc and getting better little by little. You're witnessing the beginning of the end for artist. I wouldn't be surprised if we begin to see less and less artist year by year.
It doesn't directly sample art. The database it's trained on has 5 billion images so there's no way they can be stored in the program. In a very simplified explanation, it basically learns to denoise training images from just a description of the original image, which get more noisy until it's basically pure noise. Then you can give it random noise with no original image and describe anything and it will denoise a "hallucinated" image from the random noise.
@@ideal2334 id have to wonder if this is a genuine joke bc AI art physically can't thrive without actual artists to sample from. AI is good but not nearly good enough to replace creativity based niches
i want to be an animator in the future, and honestly i'm kind of scared if people can somehow advance ai to the point where it understands how animation and its principles work.
It's pretty much already at that point if you look at the most current research. Although animators might be in a more secure position since the most ideal situation is to still do the key framing while the AI fills in all the tedious work that is frankly hundreds upon hundreds of hours a work regimen to produce. In a sense it could be a tool to liberate animators from physical restraints.
10-20 years from now you can just tell an AI what movie, anime, tv show, song or opera you want to see/listen and it creates it. You want a Sci-Fi Diablo with the story telling of Witcher 3 on a planet with a different civilization? AI will get you that in an evening.
AI is already extremely good at making 2d/3d scenes, and in many cases it can handle complex lighting much better and faster than some leading 3d rendering softwares. It performs scary well in light transmission through glass geometry and such. It’s also making huge strides in creating realistic motion by itself. There have been programs which can make a proper animation only using a few key frames and some descriptions, the AI does all of the work after that. However, I could see it being a great tool for animators as well. The AI 3d rendering is an amazing piece of tech. For some animators they may like using AI for animating monotonous scenes to help them push out content faster. It’s the most double edged sword I’ve ever heard of. Right now it’s a useful tool that still requires a human animator, in the future when it can spit out a full length episode that’s when shit goes bad.
@@YISP7 hear me out I have a bit of a conspiracy theory here: I bet it was that godawful GoT season 8 that shifted the universe into this timeline, ML engineers were so enraged they started to think "How can I fix this with mathematics"
thank christ this isn't how general ai works, usually it gets it points of data for use from reference, so the chance that it might follow these principles is more to it copying the references
@@savageratentertainment Why would you want a job in a world where you dont need a job? I know there are millionairs who still work because they are fucking insane, but leave the rest of us subsistance workers alone.
@@Somerandomguy524 in a world where there is no jobs how will the majority of people make money? In that case they will have to depend on the government or the rich to support their families. We are talking about 100s of millions of people I don't see how that will benefit the normal people of society. Unless they come up with some form of income or a way that we don't need income which doesn't seem plausible yet.
@@Somerandomguy524 because there is literal pride in working hard on something? Why wouldn't I want to work hard for something I've done? Unless this was a sarcastic comment since it's hard to tell these days what is and isn't. I mean if people WANT to be lazy so be it, but leave the real hard workers who studied years in the field alone and not take the job away.
I remember learning about AI spreading misinformation through articles. There was one guy making a bunch of AI political articles and the articles looked like it was written from a person. Also (off topic form what i said) I think AI Art shouldn't be allowed to win art contests, I think it's kind of scummy since a lot of people spent a lot fo time mastering their talent. But someone who just wrote a prompt, and it takes from different artists pieces of work to make AI work. Because the AI isn't making it from scratch, it legit takes from artists.
@@kon9729 that person who out 12 minutes into it and still got a good piece of art, something good enough to win thr contest, probably put 10's of 1000's of minutes into learning how to do that. The person that used Ai didnt
@@kon9729 Good point, but it still feels unfair. It's like a trans girl joining the female olympics or whatever women's tournament that relies on physical power/agility. It's unfair advantage.
@@tylere.8436 I guess you're just going to have to figure out how to restructure society for post-scarcity world because entities that use AI will outperform those that don't. I don't know exactly how to do that but maybe an AI would.
You know the job it absolutely cannot take away, the fucking editor who has to look through the animation and see if it has a flow, the animations are drawn correctly, the character models are consistent throughout frames. The ai is only doing your job of drawing faster, it's drawing beautifully faster, and it'll draw like shit faster. You'll never run out of a job, specifically because the niche market is always going to exist. The studios hate anything but money so they're incentivised to fire as many people away so that they can make profits and exploit the remaining workforce. That's what's gonna happen in 10 years.
@@alphetti4348 DALL-E can literally recreate art in famous artists artstyles, though? It can even mix them and in the future, it could likely have a feature present where you can "feed" it content to base its work on. We already have that as an option with another AI generator called WOMBOAI where you can insert images and chose how much it pulls from the image to remake into another. With more tweaking and tool combination, this is possible. Wombo also has another feature where it can take human faces and animate them moving and lip syncing to music and voices as seen in one of their apps they have. Imagine that with the image feeder plus the prompt connection of something like chatGPT they could eventually take the animators job. It's about taking everything and finding a way to fuse it all into one.
The whole Game Journos thing aside, it is worrying how far AI is advancing, and how some people consider it to be an amazing thing, because what it really does is scan what already exists and mashes it up enough times for something passable to come out. Not only it works exclusively from the work that already exists, made by real people, but it also serves as a poor replacement for real art, because it doesn't really learn the techniques that real artists use, but it's just passable enough and cheap to use that it might just become mainstream anyway. Something similar happened to translating works, where using an app or google translate on different languages doesn't really do a proper job conveying all the exact meanings those words might have in a different language, but due to it being cheaper and more accessible to people, became the standard, and in turn it got worse because of it. So yeah, this is bad news.
The thing is humans do exactly the same thing, we scan everything that already exists and try to mesh them together until something good comes out. That's literally how humans learn and create.
Yeah, people say "oh but that's what humans do", but humans are more willing to push the boundaries and do less predictable things. The rise of AI productions means we can expect things to be bland and safe. It does a great job of making things in existing styles, but won't meaningfully take anything to new places
I spent close to an hour researching a programming problem on stackoverflow and other sources, and after getting super frustrated by poor results in the end I posed the question to ChatGPT as a hail mary "What do I have to lose?" situation. It literally answered it. The answer wasn't completely perfect, but it did 90% of the work and got me where I needed to be. I'm both amazed and scared by how good AI is getting.
Thank you for mentioning the AI art part, but I wished you'd also have mentioned the fact that the AI produces these works by generating generalized information from thousands of other human artists who did not consent to their work being used to make a tool like this. That is the other major concern here. These are general AIs, they can't make art from nothing like a human can, they are producing work that is basically the congealed and warped versions of many other artist's works.
Is that also not what a human does? Are every artist's works not simply just a reflection of the their own experiences and their viewings of all of humanity's creations. Humans cannot create without stimulus or without learning, or perception
@@charlieward5439 It is not. Before explaining that, allow me to ask this: If the way an AI uses references is comparable to the way a human artist does, why would we ever strip the human of the enjoyment of making art and give it to an AI? This isn't a monotonous retail job devoid of enjoyment, it's something people do because they love it. This enjoyment can even work two ways: someone comissioning an artist gets joy from receiving the art they commissioned and the artist gets to indulge in their passion while also receiving compensation for their efforts. This is assumming these processes are comparable, but the reality is they are not by means of how they collect references and how they are used. Starting in reverse order; when looking at references, artists and people in general do not naturally have the ability is create complete, identiacal copies of these references on a whim. Not matter how many works by an artist you use, even if they are right infront of you, you will not be able to perfectly recreate their work. On the off chance you CAN do this, then you already have the experience to be an artist in your own right and you have achieved this through your own toil and trials. If you fed an AI every work by an artist, let's say Da Vinci, and then asked it to recreate the Last Supper, it could make a perfect recreation. An AI can recreate any style, so long as it has been trained on it enough. A beginner artist by contrast, will need to toil for long before they can even come close to mimicing the works of others. If they can recreate Michelangelo well enough it becomes hard to tell the difference between a fake and the original, they have have shown their skill despite the illegality of their actions. A human artist collects references generally has more focus, looking for references for specific things that will be present in the final works. Someone drawing a sword isn't going to need references of a wheel UNLESS a wheel is going to be in the drawing. Artists also actively seek out these references on their own, no one is telling them "These are pictures of what a sword is, use them as references", as they know what they are looking for. When an AI references something, it is pulling from a massive collection of images and their respetive descriptions that it has been trained on. The AI itself doesn't understand how it knows a sword from a wheel, it just does this, and cannot easily be trained on new data without being retrained from the ground up. If an AI can tell a sword from a wheel but you want it to draw a shield, the AI must be retrained from the ground up on a modified or new dataset with images and descriptions of swords, wheels AND shields. Imagine if a human who wanted to draw a knight had to relearn the look, use and purpose of everything associated with a knight (armour, weapons, AND what a knight is) just to draw one. On that subject, these datasets are often massive, dwarfing the number of references an artist would use for all the works they made in their entire life. The amount of data they have can number in the BILLIONS. Laion, a dataset collection Stable Diffusion was trained on (just one of them mind you), has Laion-5B which is around 5 billion image links and associated descriptions. The issueis everything and anything can find there way into these datasets because the categorization is indiscriminate. Copywrited works and even PRIVATE MEDICAL IMAGES have been found in 5B. While the latter is bad enough, those copywrited works are where it gets concerning because these are works that a normal person could not copy to a personal blog without possible legal risks. This is were I would like to make a point VERY clear: The issue is not the AIs but the dataset they are trained on and the people behind both. Laion is able to get away with using copywrited works because their status as a German non-profit company, which affords them certain legal exemptions that other for-profit companies would face. This data, derived from another non-profit company called Common crawl, is now being used IN for-profit projects like Stable Diffusion whose creator, Stability AI, funded a large part of Laion. They are using a complex web of companies to skirt around the law, abusing these legal exemptions for their own gain. Worse is, some AIs have not release any information about which datasets they've have used, meaning we have no idea what public or private contents these AIs have been exposed to. Human artists and AIs do not operate the same, as the AIs have access to stuff normal people would not and use them in ways that would lead a normal person to face legal ramifications for. These AIs, thorough the use of loopholes, make use of non-profit privledges to gather date to be funneled into projects by for-protif companies while those non-profit companies are being supported by the same for-profit companies using their data. Edit: spelling corrections
@@pipes2051 you literally didn't answer the question, explained AI badly enough that I feel like you don't really know much about how learning algorithms work, and posed an entirely unrelated question. AI learn by viewing datasets and then finding and creating associations between different variables which describe the datasets (the more times the association is made, the stronger the association). This is not entirely dissimilar to how the brain recognises patterns and learns. It then uses this to create whatever people ask it for based on prompts. Why is an AI learning off of intellectual property so wrong? It does not copy the property, it only views it. An artist does not have full legal control over what anyone can do with their intellectual property and their IP's likeness, only over other people either making money off of their IP, people pirating it, or people distributing it without their consent, depriving them of income. This is how it should be, no one should have legal control over what a private individual wishes to say, draw, or write. If I choose to train an AI off of other people's intellectual property as a private citizen, attempting to use legal means to stop me would be a VAST overreach of the law on individual freedom.
@@charlieward5439 The issue with an AI using copyrighted works for training is that they are not private individuals who are exempt from legal risk (so long as they are not used in a way the brings). They are the products of for-profit companies. These companies have no legal right to make use of copyrighted material, especially those by other companies, or images of private information in their products. They get around this by using data gathered by, and in many cases providing funding for, non-profit companies who compile the collections used to train their AI. They have access to materials the average person would not. If an artist used images of medical documentation, especially those pertaining to specific people, they would bringing legal action upon themselves if ever found out. What legal action would this imply? I don't know; part because I am not a legal expert in any measure and part because it depends on location. As for how AI actually learn, it seems similar on the surface. But this hinges on AI and humans experiencing stimuli in ways that are identical or at least very close. If a human were to see an image of, lets say a spider, they could still recognize a spider if they saw one in a video or in real life. If they were to see something that looks simliar to a spider in some way, like an ant or a scorpion, they would recognize it is not a spider. AI cannot do the same thing. An AI trained to recognize spiders using images can only recognize spiders within images. If you were to show it a video of a spider, it would not be able to recognize the spiders in it. Additionally, show it an image of an ant or scorpion, it will be confident it is a spider. If you wanted the AI to recognize the differences between spiders, ants and scorpions, you would need to retrain the AI with images and descriptions for all three. Same goes for recognizing both images and videos. Also, a person's perception of an object or concept can be changed. If a person who has positive or neutral feelings on spiders is bitten by one, that experience goes on to change their perception of spiders in a (usually) negative way. AIs do not have perceptions of objects and concepts the way humans do nor can be changed by experience. If an AI associates spiders with negative feelings, its because it was told that by someone who has or understands those associations. This is because, at their base, humans are only good at pattern recognition and learning/adaptation while AI (and computers in general) are only good at data storage and arithemtic. When an human artist creates a drawing, they are pulling on experiences and images they have obtained over their life. New experiences can easily be added to a person's mind and old experinces can coloured by new experinces, alongside the feelings associated with the experiences. When an AI is asked to make an image, it does so by drawing on data it was taught to recognize. If it is asked to do something outside what it has been taught, it will not be able to do so without being retrained on data that includes the new addition. It can certainly TRY to do so, but the results won't be akin to what anyone would expect from a human artist. Belive me when I say this: I do not have much issue with the existence of these AIs. However, I have seen too many over hyper advocates using this same argument to put down artists concerned with both their futures and how these companies are using their art.
@@pipes2051 you are actually just wrong about how AI create from prompts, they do not store any of the data that they are trained on, they simply learn from the data and are then able to create requests from what they have learned from the data. They do not store the data from the dataset. You seem to think too, that humans are born with innate ability which they are not, if you were to isolate a human from external stimulus whilst they were young and teach them only to recognise spiders, then show him an ant (which he'd never seen before), you would also find, funnily enough, he would also probably say it was a spider. You seem to view learning algorithms in the same way you view standard operations in a computer, but it's really not that simple. If a human ands up with a phobia of spiders from being bitten, this is most likely because of the association the brain has made between recognising a spider and the pain from being bitten, this is an unconscious association and the person with said phobia does not recognise why they have the phobia. You can actually do a similar thing with learning algorithms, if you take a learning algorithm which has been built to navigate a play space with a sprite and accomplish a goal, but has a health value which makes it fail it's goal if the health value hits zero and put spiders in it's play space as well, it will not have any positive, nor negative reaction to the spiders at all. However, if you suddenly change the rules of the play space so that the algorithm's sprite can be damaged by the spiders, you will see it learn very quickly that spiders should be avoided and it will avoid them at all costs, same as a human who has been bitten. Interestingly, both the human and the Algorithm, unless explicitly instructed to do so will each avoid any spiders aggressively, even if the spiders are no longer able to inflict damage or will not bite as both has made the association between the spiders and pain/damage. The only difference in these two cases is that a human would say that the human's reaction is emotional whereas the machine's is not, however, it is an interesting differentiation to make as the basic premise is practically identical, the only real difference is the relative complexity and disparity in imperfection between the brain and a learning algorithm
I always thought that the fear of AI taking away jobs was just overblown but I'm honestly legit nervous about how far it's going go and just completely fuck over people
It's going that far because of what's on the internet currently. That means people do, it imitates. We have not unlocked originality for ai. It's not gonna generate anything new that isn't inspired from something it has "seen" previously. Guys every single industry has seen automation remove the mediocre only jobs, those which can be done faster without humans. Anything that requires a functioning brain it cannot do. It's the same for creating code in the software industry as well. The entry level jobs are gonna go to some AI which is gonna mulch a massive dataset and start writing code like it's the hottest fresher from MIT, but it's not going to replace the manager even.
@@SpiritGear well, unfortunately, communism won't work because with jobs getting limited, some people are gonna want to do other stuff than what they can do, leading to overall anger and possible civil wars. Also, most Americans are extremely FOR capitalism. I'd like to see you try to make america turn communist
Its not overblown. Robots have been taking away our jobs from a long time. First the factories got automated and all those factory labour jobs evaporated. Now the same thing is happening with software.
This is happening with editors, capcut is making edits for people and changing the oversaturation of the editing community. Real editors who make stuff themselves have no meaning
as an artist this has terrified me but my younger brother is a musician and had a really interesting view of it. He compared it to how musicians were terrified when all the sample sounds and beats came out that they would all be out of jobs by computers, but instead they found it made their work easier and enhanced it. So instead of seeing AI art as taking over, use it as your sample sounds. Thats free resources for you right there at your fingertips! If you want a certain mood but don't know quite what to draw run a few prompts and get inspired! Or take some AI art and improve it! Combine them! *They are free assets for you, use them to make your life easier and better just like the music industry did* , don't let them destroy you. Cause AI can be amazing but humans can always take what they make and adapt
That's a bad analogy. It's less like sample sounds and more like a full song. You can't actually just take a full song and use it as yours with a few tweaks without being a bit scummy.
I agree. I believe it will be groundbreaking for society and we'll need to make some changes but I don't see it as a bad thing. Being able to create such beauty with such ease using AI and then on top of that enhance it with your own intelligence! There's still people that don't think 3D modelers are artists because they use a computer. But obviously we consider them artists and it a job. And besides, this AI can create something "new" using all of its inputs but it's not discovering real new things or making real new things. Moreover, I remember when they used OpenAI on LOL's best NA player and he said he wanted to use this to become better because its a perfect tool for teaching you what to improve. Lastly, even if AI does reach a stage where its sentient can create new things without inputs then why not work with it? Why are we all scared of being replaced? There's always something you can add to any project no matter your skill level.
It still depends. For now it'll probably make jobs easier but companies will always go for the cheaper option and if an AI can do the job, it'll mean the death of a lot of jobs.
Notice that its mostly the same artists that supported sample sounds now complaining about AI taking over music - its how you know most of it is all bullshit. Its always about getting rid of competition, not love for the art itself. This is why i support the idea of Piracy. They don't care about actual art, they're after the money, hence why anyone being able to re-create their art in a better way is deemed a threat. Its why most art today is dogshit, most games are trash and most modern music is bland and cringe - there isn't any financial incentive to improve dogshit art that you create due to anti-competitive IP laws. How many tons of game franchises have you seen ruined completely due to title rights and never allowed to launch past open source? "Command and Conquer" was my favorite RTS game franchise, but then got acquired by EA, CnC4 was the death of the game after a mediocre CnC3 release. Hardcore fans didn't give up and some went on to create Renegade X based off of CnC renegade as well OpenRa based off of CnC classics(both not created by EA). They were forced to be open source by EA which used IP rights laws to prevent them from selling the games, which could have led to better quality of those games. Never forget, these artists don't care a damn about art at all, they care solely about making money. What sort of artist that cares about art would tell another to not make art? Unless of course, that he doesn't care about art at all, and feels threatened that he will not get any money should the other artist succeed and become popular!
The issue with the AI art is that from what I’ve seen and heard from the art community is that it’s stealing art to form it’s “ new “ pieces. I’m no artist but that’s what I’m hearing from a lot of artists
@@GrabbandeseNuts bro I clicked on your profile and one of your comments on this channel is about how a black person obviously made a song about cheating your opinion holds no value
Yeah a lot of the AI art you see online is most likely done by using other people's art as a basis. You can see tons of AI pictures that are basically the same as the picture it was based on minus the few adjustments to change the character to someone else.
@@GrabbandeseNuts not at all, its literally stealing their art. It doesnt take einstein to know that that is morally corrupt. Everything you do will be taken over by ai, so enjoy it while making fun of artist ig
@@GrabbandeseNuts It’s an attack on intellectual property laws tho - in the future only big companies will own the rights to anything. People are excited at the prospect of suddenly being able to tell their story without realising that in a sea of garbage content their story won’t matter and nothing they “make” will ever be their own.
Just 5 years ago, people were still impressed that ai could play a board game better than humans. The amount of development that has occurred in these past few years is truly insane.
If game journalists does use ai for their articles in the future. Then wouldn't the artical just feel pointless now that we know its computer generated?
This day Amazons AMM42X is clearly setting up the new milestone! The only real way to counter the current recession is by acting on yourself, making own decisions and making sure that you got enough no matter what happens. If you trust conventional ways you might end up being homeless or worse at one day, seriously.. This is why I believe in projects like this one which are clearly there to make a difference and it starts right now
Even though AI has developed to an impressive level, I think that this "issue" says more about the abysmal state of game journalism than AI development I don't think that actually good journalists have anything to worry about, yet
AI is definitely limited by classical computer architecture and storage capacity. With quantum computing you can execute computations in parallel that emulates the human mind. It'll definitely be used to accelerate our understanding of physics.
There's a strong misunderstanding on the benefits and purpose of quantum computers. It's not simply running a bunch of things in parallel, its applications are pretty niche
I'm wondering if this is a case of the AI being genuinely impressive at the tasks given to it or that the majority of journalists are actually just terrible at their jobs and we've all just grown accustomed to it. Maybe reality is somewhere in the middle, but I'm not entirely sure I'd be worried JUST yet. The day I see AI writing Stephen King books or JRR Tolkien level novels in both length and complexity is when I'm REALLY going to start panicking. The problem with this game journalist article thing isn't that an AI wrote it, it's that ANYONE could have written it. If you asked any random person to write an article based off the same prompt, I guarantee most people would be able to come up with something similar with pretty minimal effort. Real journalism isn't something that an AI can write because real journalism requires work, getting in the weeds, and taking genuine risk. An AI, for all its advances, still can't embed itself with soldiers fighting in Ukraine, or travel to other countries to interview dictators, or delve into libraries of history to research a book about Margaret Thatcher.
I think your first sentance hit's the nail on the head. It's not the advancement of AI that's highlighted here, it's just how bad game journos have gotten at their jobs, that a few key words punched into an AI can replicate what a Kotaku article would look like word for word. The problem is game journos don't put in the extra effort anymore. They take 20 minutes, put together a quick 3 minute read based on something they woke up feeling offended about, and submit it to Kotaku, and then we get to see it. There is no attention to detail or extra effort put in. If there was, any human would be able to see the difference.
I saw someone give AI personalities of different Persona characters and set up chat rooms with them, and someone had two different AI characters talk to each other by sending their messages to the other AI. And upon having the plan explained to them, the AI’s could not only comprehend the experiment being conducted very well, but also had a positive opinion of it and found it “Very interesting”, the characters then had a full conversation about the morality and their opinions of the actions of the Phantom Theives from Persona 5. At the end one of the AI’s thanked the person for setting up the conversation and noted it as being interesting. It was really cool and also a bit scary to see how natural they acted
Ai art is definitely a concern for me because I was interested into going into an art career. These last couple years with nfts and ai art has really made me rethink that.
I would say to just do it as a hobby. That's what I'm doing. Never really sought to go into an art career, and now it's heavily discouraging with all the AI art
@@kolliwanne964 i agree that AI can be used as a tool, but you never really see a lot of these people using it as such. They mostly just generate an AI image and then claim themselves as artists
@@atomicaftershow And it shows. If you lose your income because whoever used to buy your art is content with buying generic crap, then maybe you shouldnt try to compete with a crap producing machine.
I hope Charlie looks into the AI Art situation more than the level of description he started with. AI Art only works how it does because people use prompts to deliberately steal work from specific artists. The AI isn't doing the brush strokes, it's using someone else's work as a template. AI written language on the other hand makes a lot more sense because it can generate the grammatical structures and parse its sentences by adding words and phrases in the correct place.
Recently heard about OpenAI, and saw some of the code it can produce. Even though it (probably) can't create something extremely specific like "in java, create an efficient web server that picks a random 3d objects from and renders it in 3d on the web page"... but it's got me worried if in 10 years, will there even be any programming jobs required that don't consist of fixing/writing better AIs to write all the software we use
I've been using the OpenAI GPT-3 model for 2 years now, in the playground beta test platform, and it was so dumb back in 2020. Seeing the evolution it made in 2 years, and knowing that the model ChatGPT is using is dated from July, 2020, I can't wait to see what happens in the next few years, but I'm also scared. I'm also so glad that it went viral, it had me amazed for some time, but the fact that now they've integrated it into a chat and put a GUI on it is amazing.
What I’m wondering about is that if people can just put in a prompt telling an AI to have an opinion on something for them instead of writing it themself, does that really have any value as a written work? I personally don’t think so.
"The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed". Some people are going to benefit way more from this then others and that really sucks. AI should make the world a better place for everyone.
![Yailin La Mas Viral, @kreizyk.official - Dale 2 (Remix) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JaYHBzgqz94/mqdefault.jpg)
A few days ago, I used this AI in an online Dungeons and Dragons group with a close group of friends I've known for about 5 years. I gave the minimum backstory of my character, world, NPCs, and other player characters.
I started the game like any other, though once the session was in full swing, I kept copying and pasting everything that was happening in the session, into the AI's prompt, to keep it well informed on the status of the game.
Anytime my character would make an action within the game, I would type "Provide me an appropriate response to X situation, with as much detail as possible."
Using the minimum information of the game, the AI appeared to grasp the entirety of this fantasy world we built over the last 5 years, and made appropriate actions with the POV of my character in mind.
In fact, with very minor adjustments and a few 'Try Again's to keep the AI on track, it was capable of getting the party out of a very dangerous situation, while keeping to the morals and ethics my character upholds. AND ADDITIONALLY, my friends could not tell the difference at all, and has no clue it was an artificial intelligence playing in my place.
We were in shock of what this AI can do. Keep in mind that there is a much more advanced version of this AI that has yet to be released to the public. Frankly, horrifying, but strangely beautiful.
What AI is this? As a dnd player u got my interest
@@joaoborges1764 it's called chatgpt its free online just need to make an account
At least say the name?
@@jonathanmastergame lmao just look at the replys
Been going on for years. Social media is 90% fake comments.
I really want Charlie to have the ai make a script for his video, and for him to make it and publish it, and not tell us for like a whole month to see if we can pick up on it
Someone made an ai deep fake video of charlie a few months ago and it was scarily similar to the real thing
mkbhd did that. check out his latest video.
i tried making a script for him, but ChatGPT doesnt know who penguinz0 is :(
@@lux0rd01 We know those videos use voice cloner AI, but the scipt is more likely written by a human, though it wouldn't be hard to feed an AI lots of transcripts of charlie talking then have it spew out his signature verbose lengthy insults.
@@MumblingSolipsist I was referring to one that was both a deep fake AND an ai written script
We should train Ai to be able to detect things made by Ai
That AI will train AI to become undetectable.
There is a whole AI subfield revolving around this idea: Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN's). It's actually the general architecture behind how deepfakes came to be
Why would laymen care? They'd just appeal to a "good enough" product.
“If it's too good to be true, it probably is” ❌
"If it's too good to be true, it's probably made by an AI"✔
@@neo-didact9285 Not sure why some people fail to understand that a lot of laymen actually care about the people making products. People wouldn't care about AI art if they didn't care about artists.
A few years ago: "Journalists, learn to code."
Now: "Journalists, learn to be code."
Code, learn to journal
@@CircusofPython journal, code to learn
@@mihael64to, journal code learn
more like: code learn journalist
I am become code
There's so much footage of Charlie sitting in his chair and talking, I'm sure AI could compile all his footage and sounds and take over this channel. It may already be happening.
Didn't he already do a video on that?
It already has
@@flameshana9 no that was deepfake I think
@@volty3454 Yea not sure why Char;ie framed this video this way, does he have something against journalists? How long will it be til the "Streamers Will Be Replaced by AI" video drops? Will Charlie still say its a "really good idea" then?
I mean did you notice how positive to Ai this video is? He's already been taken.
Being called a "bot" is slowly becoming a complement
Lol
Lol
FYI: There was a time when being accused of using an aimBOT, without using one, was a compliment. (Back when CS:S was the main shooter)
With AI the field to apply computers to just got broader.
my prediction is that all competitive gaming will just be different AI players. We will give them all names and humans can only bet on the matches and watch. I'm not talking some cheap CS:GO bot either.
@@TheBigLou13 Its still a compliment
Imagine going through college today and just having AI write all of your essays
GPT can't write essays. At least not original ones. You'd get dinged for plagiarism and out yourself the moment the professor asks any questions about your process. Not to mention citing sources.
Imagine being in school and using GOOGLE. 🤯
@@chatboss000 It outputs text based on what it learns. It doesn't just paste things from the data it was trained on. I got my very last college essay during the summer written by GPT-3 and got a 100
@@user-rf4vc7mt4d 0.0 oh
@@chatboss000 just use a paraphrasing tool
The scarier thing would be if the ai had access to social media data and was able to tailor make articles for each person depending on their preferences.
You could do this with current technology. Scrape a person’s social media profile from the internet and ask them survey questions, prepare an RSS feed catered for their tastes, and use ChatGPT prompt engineering to reword the RSS feed to be written specifically for you. It’s a brilliant idea lol
@@Mostlylikeyou1234 This actually sounds like a talk Tom Scott gave about the future like 10 years ago. Scary, but also kinda cool.
@@impishlyit9780 Fortunately, these AI aren't capable of critical thinking. They're only able to recognize patterns and copy them.
That means that AI depends on human content creators for reference material. In the future, AI will have to train off of AI-generated garbage, computing costs will go through the roof, and our AI overlords will collapse and die.
OpenAI has historically spent one year between releasing their GPT models. They've spent over two years on developing GPT4, and results aren't very promising. I think that the AI boom is officially behind us, and that progress will be permanently slower. Game journalists are fucked tho
I think this is kind of what facebook is betting on. I think they're betting on technology being able to read your feedback to content, react, and create personalized VR experiences unique to each person. Imagine the dopamine hit to be able to slip into utopia every time you put your facebook helmet on. The greatest experience your brain can possibly imagine. You'd never want to leave. It *still* sounds like scifi BS, even to me, even now, but it's pretty clear that's the next step. Everybody makes fun of 'the metaverse', but think about where this is headed. And that's probably the scariest thing I can imagine. We're a couple decades from losing our humanity.
@@Mostlylikeyou1234 why are you so confident, I'd love to know your insight?
I understand AI at the moment is just copying and regurgitating information fed to it but isn't that most of human work already? Also what if future AI is taught how to critically think, then it's potential is massive
This is probably testament to how robotic game journalist articles are rather than how impressive AI can be in generating a random wall of text
I don't think so. Its just really good at imitating the articles it learned from.
It's both.
You probably haven't seen what these new large language models are generating. Random wall of text is not an accurate description.
AI can pretty effectively synthesize takes based on standard level thinking. If you're not particularly creative or insightful you can be automated pretty easily, and even if you are you'll use AI to assist your work. I haven't seen indications of AI coming to independent conclusions, but it can effectively synthesize and sum up what's fed into it.
The Robots are just machines. They can't be bargain with, they can't be reason with, they don't feel pity or remorse and it abouslety will not stop ever until someone tries to detect weather if sentences are robotic or human.
There's something just really depressing about how in the beginning we thought AI would free up people from manual labor in order to pursue more creative and artistic endeavors but instead we now live in the world where all those endeavors are being automated now by AI while for some reason the world is very insistent that the most depressing, grueling, and even dangerous jobs *must* still be done by humans.
Maybe in the distant future, there will be physical moving robots with ai designed for specific tasks. Ai is amazing but it has its limits as long as it’s bound to a computer
@@legendarynick2798 Well said.
Right? I thought AI would free me from having to do the things in life most people don’t wanna do. Creativity is something humans always have done and enjoy doing regardless if there’s anything in it for us. Why did it have to be that? It’s exactly the opposite of what a lot of us expected and it even feels like a future with AI isn’t what we thought it would be
Don't blame AI. Blame the people who prefer to make people do slave labour instead of using AI that can do the same thing, only at a marginally higher cost.
@@user-xn3rs7tu5w blame greedy business owners. 30 cents and slave labour is a lot cheaper than 2 dollars and an AI
Some day, schools are going to have to warn students not to use AI to write their essay papers the same way they warn us now about plagiarizing. Except it’ll be harder to pinpoint if the writing is “plagiarized” from the AI, since it spits out newly generated text all the time...
I can see this becoming a more prevalent issue in the future, and I know, because I’ve used it myself to get through highschool. Hell, I let AI write my graduation speech as valedictorian, and nobody found out.
Companies hosting these services might have to keep track of what’s being generated or have the text saved somewhere the public can see. But until then, you can pretty much take advantage of this resource with almost no repercussions. Nobody will know.
Oh some college students were already using it to do their homework. Then realized it was so fast they could do everyones homework, so they made it a business until they got caught and stopped by the college.
I highly doubt u used AI to form your ‘valedictorian’ speech lmao
Some day, AI will be in charge of our schools and humans won't be allowed to write stuff because we're too slow and dumb.
They'll focus harder on testing in college, give them time.
@@shmeatr2463 why do you doubt that? generative nlp models aren't new
I used to write copy for an agency and right about my birthday in September I was told I was being laid off because they found an AI copy program that was way cheaper. Skynut is real, folks.
They told you that?
Really?!
Skynut lol. Sorry thats really deep but i couldnt avoid that
@@Therealferm I was referencing his Skynut music vid hehe
@@mitchelkvedar674 yep. Worst part is the AI's copy is pretty good 🙃
I’m a software engineer and I been toying around with chatGPT (since I heard that it can write entire applications given a prompt or solve complex software problems very well*) and after describing to it some bugs in my code and listening to its prescribed solutions (which were actually kind of helpful? ) I am starting to believe this kind of technology will be able to replace me in the future. For now it is a killer companion to help me do my job.
im starting to learn CS50 and asked if it could write one of my initial assignments more efficiently and well it not only did that but also explained that.. in chatGPT's words " This approach can make the code more concise and easier to read, but it may also be less intuitive for other programmers who are not familiar with the syntax of conditional operators. Ultimately, the best approach will depend on your specific goals and the needs of your project." WHAT
At this point ai will replace almost every job. What point is there to even go to school..
AI won't replace people until we get rid of the inefficient Von Neumann architecture for something actually economical to run AIs on.
I believe that AI will stagnant, with some small improvements here and there.
@@TJpajamas Shit is wild. My uncle is a software engineer, and his mind is blown as well.
@@alex-hc3sk definitely not most jobs would be untouched the first to come to mind are doctors/labourers/entrepreneurs/teachers/nurses/firemen/secretaries/human resources/therapists/policemen/engineers/architects/computer scientists/cooks/butchers/bakers/bankers/politicians/
as an artist i'm sad. as a programmer i'm happy we've come so far. weird world we live in.
As a programmer you should also be sad because chatgpt is gonna take jobs of millions of junior software developers
@@fallen2624 it's not going to. if you looked into it, it can replicate very simple patterns i has already seen before. It cannot even solve the newer leetcode Easy problems. It's really weak when it comes to extrapolation. It will be used to automate things, but it will not replace programmer jobs, just make them easier.
@@junkoe3808 you should take into account how fast it grows and develops. Sure, right now it's just a tool that makes work easier and faster, but even this is enough for demand for developers to decrease, especially for those who are just starting out. Since 99% of the work that juniors do can already be automated using this tool. Imagine what's gonna happen in 10-15 years?
@@junkoe3808 Haha, many thought the same thing about art. Just u wait. Programmers will become their own Ai's bitch. At least junior level programmers.
@@junkoe3808 you are overlooking the bigger picture by focusing on now and here points. Literally strawmanning out of your own worries so you don't have to think about them. Worst case scenario AI will relegate most humanity to physical labor under big tech if this trend continues uncontested, as for the best case scenario - every blue collar job will now be contested by an AI that forces a rather brutal entry bar.
I wouldn't be surprised if Charlie was an AI generated program this entire time.
But isn't he Jesus?
@@steelheart538 robo Jesus
Well he's already talked about the A.i videos made of him
I legit saw a generated moist meter video the other day and it was pretty accurate
That'd definitely explain the voice lol
I'm sure game journalists will be missed dearly
NOT
😂😂
@@yorusaka3554 😂😂
😂
@@emilfrederiksen.1622 😂😂😂😂😂
I love the idea of creative pieces being marked as organic because it's human made. lol
Just like home grown vegetables. Everyone will think they are gross and overpriced and prefer to go to the store instead
@@Bdavis2475 i really wish this didn't feel so accurate
hand made is already a thing
who the hell reads game journals????? wtf kind of job is that
@@elyelena1002 you look funny
I’m about to graduate college and just used openAI and Quillbot for the first time after a friend recommended them. I was having some writer’s block and decided to use them to help me start some of my last couple papers for goofs and ended up being absolutely floored by how I’m depth the open AI program is. Combine it it’s Quilbot and it practically does the whole paper for you. It takes a fraction of the time to create papers with more research and solid analysis than I’ve been able to do in the same amount of time during my academic career. While human-made prompts and further edits are necessary, the programs are awe inspiring and well made. All of this raises many ethical questions and concerns that we’re just beginning to scratch the surface of, but I recommend the two programs above just to mess around with for now. I still don’t know how I feel about all of this even after using the programs.
Crazy
Brings up another issue for English/writing teachers in them not being able to distinguish an AI generated essay compared to an "organic" one. Math teachers have always had to worry about calculators and computers doing the work for the student, and now teachers in other subjects are gonna have to worry about the same thing.
I need to know what grade you got on that paper
bro do you know any other websites that would helpful? Also, do you know the AI used to generate this article?
@@baldassare5426 the article in the video was generated with ChatGPT
As a college student who is already struggling with inflation, insanely high house prices and a potential oncoming recession, ChatGPT is terrifying. It doesn't directly affect my field of employment yet, but with how fast this advanced, it feels like only a matter of time till its developed enough to make a large portion of jobs obsolete. Art and Journalism are niche fields which impact a very small portion of the workforce, but what about when its ability to code exceeds the average programmer, it can generate on the spot business reports, it can fulfil most clerk/secretary duties, etc.
Art is not niche brah, music is gonna be next too I think. This some cyberpunk shiiii
This has always been the same in human history. Fields of employment are automated by machines, people cry out loud and then new jobs are created.
People start working in these new sectors like in this case for example currating an AI with information or giving the AI the right prompts to finetune the output to your liking.
When AI achieves true human level IQ in all fields, any human job will be obsolete and we can all chill out.
I'm honestly surprised AI hasn't replaced secretary duties yet. But I feel like the only jobs that are safe are jobs that require "intense" human interaction like teachers, and ua...honestly idk actors and news anchors already read off a script and can 100% be a pretty face with an AI script. I can see deepfakes getting so good that they can replace actors (though not cost-effective)
Art is not niche at all. All the 2D artists, game designer, 3D designers, animators, even photographs, book writer, scenarists, composer, musicians, sound engineers and so many more will disappear because of AI
When this sorta automation came to factories and was making many blue collar jobs obsolete, they were told to adapt. The same thing is gonna be true for artists and writers in the future, including me. A lot of 3D art is already generated.
In art field it s even more annoying frustrating baffling because the ai is trained based on other artists
And not only dead ones.
Artists who could be struggling even more to find a job that ai TRAINED BY THEIR ART stole from them.
Artists have their hard work taken w/out permission to create app/webside to replace them.
If AI does it better, then who cares find a new job
@@Tylerrrrrb if the only reason "ai does it better" (doubt) is because works of artists that didn t consent to having their pieces used then there is a problem. Lot s of ai bros straight up put artists names in prompts to copy what they mastered. And now want to profit off it? If you don t see what s wrong w it then man pls work on critical thinking skills
And ye im not in art field bc i fear stuff like this. Instead im stuck in med sql💀
@@Tylerrrrrb imagine the career that you have honed for years with little actual economic incentive suddenly getting obsolete because a guy trained a bot to copy exactly how specifically YOU do it, and then proceeds to churn out a ton of money out of a skill you developed.
@@vrygon0 maybe don’t hone in on a Career with little economic insensitive for years? Obviously ? If people did that , then they’re morons tbh
@@munmun__ stop with this copyright argument, u artists also "steal" from other artists work, dont come here pretending u dont use other art as reference for inspiration, the only problem u have is that the machine is doin it faster than u can ever do it, if u are goin to say AI steals from artists without consent, then all artists are thieves aswell.
I like how Charlie doesn't realize that this is already happening in not only game journalism, but regular journalism. And it's been like this for almost 10 years. In fact, Google's search algorithm is beginning to be saturated with AI generated garbage.
@YeaMan Speaking of which...
How does this work? And can you give me an exampl?
What makes human articles not garbage?
@@michaeldubery3593 they actually do reseach instead of scraping other sorces. Humans can fact check and check relevancy, ai does not
Stock news is 100% saturated for sure - refer to Motley Fool - every stock movement is provided a new article from their site and ends up in Yahoo Finance's articles for the day. No way its human
AI generated videos could easily become big on youtube too in the future, to be honest im kind of scared how good that article generation is already. Imagine how easy it would be to convert that to speech and generate a character that says it. AI moist?
There's already a video of an ai generated moist critikal video. It's pretty freaky
There's already an Ai generated kids gaming channel called Bloo. Quebblekopp made it and its got a bunch of subscribers but the views are kinda eh. Videos are terrible but it's on par with other shitty mass produces child friendly gaming RUclipsrs
I can write an essay about how AI generated videos could easily become big on youtube in the future
AI generated videos have the potential to become very popular on RUclips in the future. This is because AI technology has advanced to the point where it can create videos that are almost indistinguishable from those made by humans.
One of the biggest advantages of AI generated videos is that they can be produced quickly and at a low cost. This means that creators can churn out a large volume of content in a short amount of time, which is essential for success on RUclips.
Another advantage of AI generated videos is that they can be highly personalized. For example, an AI system could analyze a viewer's preferences and create a video that is tailored specifically to their interests. This level of personalization is not possible with human-made videos and could be a major draw for viewers.
Additionally, AI generated videos can be made in a variety of styles and formats. This means that creators can experiment with different types of content and see what resonates with their audience.
However, there are also some potential drawbacks to AI generated videos. For example, some viewers may find the lack of human involvement to be off-putting. Additionally, there are concerns about the potential for AI generated videos to be used for nefarious purposes, such as spreading misinformation or propaganda.
Overall, AI generated videos have the potential to become very popular on RUclips in the future. They offer creators the ability to produce a large volume of personalized content quickly and at a low cost. While there are some potential drawbacks, the benefits of AI generated videos are likely to outweigh any concerns.
@@theclassyxenomorph1301 That video was fake, Charlie got it wrong. It wasn't as seamless as the video he showed. Ai can edit videos and they can create animations but It's going to take a longer time that our lives for AI to be able to take someone's face and make it appears as if they're making a video and speaking lol and doing things lol. Who knows, maybe Metaverse will figure that out by then LMFAO 💀💀
my brother works at a bank, and he told me that they use OpenAI to write reports to their investors, and its more than up to standard. i think its gonna be really useful to society but right now its scary how many jobs are at stake
I for one welcome it, let the AI take over the jobs everyone hates, then we have more reason to be angry about the rampant inequality that makes job stealing a bad thing
@@steamtasticvagabond474 You’re joking right?
@@Lawnmower737 I sorta get what he means.
Back when artists complained people insulted them.
Now that people realize its more than art and that it’ll affect all jobs people might actually complain.
@@coal159 not quite, I’d like society to just collapse already so we can get on with the rebuilding
@@steamtasticvagabond474 Why? That’s absolutely messed up. The new world order or the restructuring of society isn’t what we need.
“It's interesting to think about how technology like GPT-3 could potentially impact the role of game journalists in the future. While it's unlikely that it will completely replace the need for human writers, it's possible that it could be used to automate certain tasks or provide additional support for creating content. Ultimately, it will be up to the game journalism industry to adapt and find ways to incorporate these new tools in a way that benefits both the writers and their readers” -chat gpt, created using the prompt “Create a comment for a RUclips video about how chat gpt could replace game journalist jobs one day.”
Journalists are just one field and game journalists are one subsection, the tip of the iceberg. The AI will completely replace the need for human writers, all human writers in all contexts. However just because they are not needed doesn't mean that they won't exist. People will write and create because that process is needed by that individual and offers more to them as a human experience, just not because they are necessary.
bruh. Soon all comments will be AI
@@yoyonis6840
Looking at RUclips comment sections in general, I think they already are.
@@_dh0ull_ it's more scrips than real ai
I can't stop laughing at how the AI jumped to the conclusion that planet Zebes is a stereotypical depiction of East Asia.
Omg fr
Ign journalists *nervous sweating* (i saw an article about video game racism similar to this on ign)
One part of the whole Al art thing that's not been mentioned much is also just how abrasive a lot of Al-bros have been directly to artists. There are several that have gone out of their way to make Als that specifically focus on certain artists (some of who are dead) to copy their styles and then have only been snarky and rude when told by those artists (the ones who are still alive or related to the ones who are dead) to stop.
Not to mention the people who try to treat it as the "democratization" of art. As if Al is bringing art to the masses. As if artists are some kind of elite who are hoarding the ability to make art to themselves. It pushes the idea that art is all about god-given talent and not that these people have just been doing it for years and studying and practicing to get where they are. I know you're not supposed to judge the merit of something entirely on the worst of its fanbase, but I just see them everywhere and don't see many of them saying otherwise.
Right like so many are like "you guys are just mad you have to get a real job" like no I'm mad because the thing I love is being devalued more now
!!!!!!!!!! fuck AI art!
@@thelying2594 art doesn't have inherent value
@TheLying the thing I'm wondering is AI art and AI in general learns from humans. to have good AI stuff you have to calibrate it to what humans want. I wonder if AI could ever replace something completely since its cannibalistic
@@misterkrabs2254 neither do you or I buddy
The biggest gripe artists tend to have isn't /just/ potentially losing money over AI as competition, but it's also the fact that a lot of AI algorithms are using artists work without permission to generate these images, and then having a bunch of pompous people acting like putting keywords into the AI means they have the same effective skill level as people who actually create the artwork that the AI takes from. I also heard about something with personal records being used in some AI algorithms which isn't great.
It doesn't help that artist sites like deviantart attempted to shove ai art down people's throats and automatically opt people in to have their art used without given consent.
Now, on its own, I don't mind the concept of AI. Hell, I even think that its great that we could potentially find ways to incorporate it into our daily lives. But I just don't really like the anti-artist sentiment some individuals have with it.
we need some sort of database to identify what has been generated, tired of seeing ai generators try paywall their content or sell commissions while hiding that their art is generated
If you want to play the permission game then visual artists are done. Over half the artists online only grow because they draw and commercialize fanart of established properties which people buy, the other half draw from reference material in a 6GB PureRef file that will be never credited. Maybe try rethinking the whole capitalism thing before giving law people more power over creative works.
@@DuckieMcduck Are you actually calling fan artists as people who steals from established properties, despite them having their own style of art that they've developed after years of practice? Yes they're using references, but its not the same as completely stealing other people's art style. Its not the characters of said established properties that is the problem, its the ARTSTYLE
I agree that AI artists are super full of themselves and act like they're really doing something more than typing keywords, I literally saw on twitter one AI artist accuse another of "stealing" because they wrote similar prompts. It was like rats fighting over pizza in the subway station.
@@christmastiger Wow, they are borderline stupid lmao.
Until the AI can write a Zero Punctuation episode, I’m not panicked.
Haha true
And then it did lol
Give it time.
I write articles as part of my job, and my manager told me last week that he’s testing an AI that writes these pages much faster than we do. The prospect of losing a huge part of my job to a fricken robot is kinda scary.
This has been a thing for a few years now in journalism. Especially for sports, it’s just now available to the public
"Flesh is cringe, machine is the future"
-AI
I crave the strength and certainty of steel. Your kind cling to your flesh as if it will not decay and fail you.
@@habibishapur I knew this was going to be somewhere in the comments and I am not disappointed. Praise the Omnissiah!
Thank god maybe we’ll get some good reviews
*Ok_Dont_Read_My_Names!!.*
......
Finally 👁️👃👃👁️🙏
Fr
@@dontreadprofilephoto1728 which one can I read again?
These bots are getting out of control, jfc
I wouldn't say the art is perfect or indistinguishable from organically created art and Chatgpt is not infallible either. They're both incredible in how convincing they can be or can sound, but we have to be careful jumping on the boat wholesale. Both for authenticity, fact checking and the moral issues that arise when other peoples art or code is used
We are finally in the age where AI is taking over
Not quite.
*Ok_Dont_Read_My_Names!!.*
......
Ratio + k-pop better + mbappe the goat + mbappe better than haaland 🤓🤓🤓
@doofy2636 bro what
I need top
You guys want to hear the scariest part, that wasn't Danny, it was an AI pretending to be him.
The amount of kids that are going to be using AI generated essays for assignments in the future is going to be nuts
Looks like we're going back to handwritten essays in class. Thanks Ai, we're back to the old method now.
@@Ted_Curtis Then kids will use AI to replicate their handwriting
@@SomeRandomPiggo then in the future it wont be the kids who take classes, but AI. Even the teachers will be AI. People will be AI. The world will be AI. Everything. The universe. Our whole existence... AI.
@@Neithan_Hirsch im convinced this comment was writen by AI
@@Neithan_Hirsch I'm convinced this comment was written by AI
Here's an article it made when I put it some prompts about Charlie:
Penguinz0, also known as MoistCritikal, is a hero in the world of online gaming and entertainment. As one of the most popular content creators on RUclips, he has built a dedicated following of fans who admire his skills and personality.
In addition to being a talented gamer, Penguinz0 is also a pillar of the online community. He is known for his kindness and generosity, frequently donating his time and money to support various causes. He has even organized and participated in charity livestreams, raising thousands of dollars for organizations in need.
Despite his success and popularity, Penguinz0 remains a down-to-earth and loveable guy. He is known for being genuine and authentic in his interactions with his fans, and for always staying true to himself. This, along with his incredible gaming skills, is what has made him such a beloved figure in the online world.
In short, Penguinz0 is not only an incredibly talented gamer, but also a hero and a pillar of the online community. His kindness, generosity, and authenticity make him a truly special individual, and he is sure to continue to be a favourite among his fans for years to come.
Damn, that sounds legit. 😆
bro wtffff
mmm a bit repetitive, and misses the fact that he's the community's most reliable news anchor(/hj) but i still wouldn't put it past one of my peers or even my siblings to write something like this. i think by testing it out like this we might be adding more to the databases
I think he is a hero and a pillar of the online community
@@kyokotakoya7257 it says a few things twice… but that’ll prob be fix in, what… couple months?
This might not only be used for game journalism, it can also be used in any industry.
Out of all fields of journalism then subjective review pieces (like music game film) reviews would be the hardest. Investigative journalists are going to be largely unaffected.
Things that take alot of thought and skill won't be. My sister worked in journalism for a lifestyle magazine. Her job could be done by literally copy and pasting, because of the rubbish she was asked to write up on.
I hear a lot of people freaking out about this in creative writing spaces. In my opinion, the AI will fail there.
While in its fake news article the AI's errors are things people could miss - like not knowing that there isn't a SpaceX rocket called Samus - in a fantasy novel or some such, the AI would have a much harder time convincing a lay person that it is a human.
AI already has a difficult time maintaining a cohesive narrative that long, but even if the overall narrative made sense, it would require copious editing. Something simple that humans would understand - like that after our heroes have jumped out the castle window and into the moat to escape, they must be above water to talk to each other - will not be understood by an AI.
And even _then_ the AI fails to replace the human for a simple reason. Visual art can be viewed in copious amounts. It doesn't necessarily matter if it isn't in a groundbreaking new style and such.
For successful creative writing though, the AI would need to be capable of understanding the current trends in the market, and come up with interesting new twists on things. I believe that an AI will never be successful in that.
So yes, AI is a threat to you if you intend on making a lot of mediocre quality stuff. If you're journalism is actually robust, your novel imaginative, the AI will never match you.
Digital art is already taking a hit because of AI. A lot of digital artists for streamers and vtubers, hell - even rule 34/nsfw artists are losing customers because of AI. Not only that it makes art, it's using other creators' work to learn HOW to make art. What baffles me the most is that the average joe isn't even aware of that sometimes, and blatantly ignores mistakes the AI makes. I've seen promotion artwork of a vtuber's character having 6 fingers on one hand - not a single comment even noticed. Also - some people use AI to straight up sell the artwork it makes - and they claim they did it themselves.
Okay I'll be honest I've brushed this shit off for a while now and thought that especially artists were over reacting about Ai, but if it can create that entire article off a single prompt, that is genuienly terrifying
It learned from previous Kotaku articles.
I think people are missing the real implication of this. If AI can reproduce game journalist articles then perhaps we need to analyze just how incredibly simple, regurgitated, and rehashed most game journalism is.
AI development is crazy fast now, but if you tell it to reproduce something that had legitimate critical thought and not some buzzword hit piece like most articles are now, you could definitely tell it apart.
@@cosmic_sloth so... if we go back to thinking about artists, does that mean that most art is "incredibly simple, regurgitated, and rehashed"?
like on one hand im not a fan of the sorts of works AI produces but just cause some journalism sucks doesnt make this not a legit concern lol
@Sonny Yeah but it's not just game journalism, this ai can generate 100's of lines of working code simply by describing the program you want it to create, it can summarize text you give it, explain some fairly obscure topics to you, you can even use it to tweak the style and feeling of some text you give it. You should give it a try yourself or at least look at some more examples online before you make such confident statements.
There's plenty that have been doing that for a long time. Jarvis AI (I think i'ts called something else now) was shown to me by a friend and it puts out seamless blog posts for her blog. There are better ones that target creative writing, and I haven't played with them yet but I heard they help writers a lot. It's definitely already been going on for a while now and will only get bigger. None of the writers talking about it on reddit seemed concerned about that though so it must not be that big of a deal yet. They were very clear that it's still more of a tool than a replacement.
AI art, at least in its current state, is still pretty easy to tell apart from man made art once you look closely at the details. But with how fast it’s advancing I wouldn’t be surprised if it becomes indistinguishable within the next decade…and that’s pretty scary to think about for upcoming artists
Replace decade with 2 years
I think we have reached the point where it is indistinguishable. Search up Alex Ross superman ai image, if I knew that painting was done by a person I would think of them as super skilled.
@@soldorne6956 AI’s starting to nail faces but intricate features still look pretty uncanny. Just look at how AI draws hands for example, it still generally struggles to make them look believable.
@@alan_galan midjourney v4 is starting to get good at hands
The rate that it's progressing is actually alarming
Four years ago i was so excited about AI and thought that it was so cool and mind-blowing. Now im just terrified, deeply, horribly terrified
My videos r way better than penguinz0
Me too bro
But why though? It cannot even invent new things, all it does is stitch some old stuff together.
There is so many thing this AI cannot and won't ever be able to do.
For example we will never have good gaming journalism, since the artificial one is based on the real one.
Bad input, bad output. Simple as that.
@@Depressed_Spider I think you're missing some points. Yes, as of now AI isn't not far enough to do things you mentioned but you must realize that AI era is at its infancy, and as it grows and develops at an exponential rate it will be able to replace humans in pretty much every field.
@@Depressed_Spider do you think corporations and capitalism cares about new things? They don't and thus creative jobs will be replaced with AI that can do mundane things well enough people already buy broken things like pre orders and cheap shit so new things can just be an old thing with a different coat of paint and people will be satisfied
I've watched an AI jump into the first goomba in mario 100 times in a row, so they definitely have the skills for game journalism
But AI, unlike games journalists, is actually capable of learning or improving itself in even the smallest way.
@@Double_Vision Theres a vid of this guy that used ai programming to test how far it can go on the game, Jump King.
May I suggest another likely future scenario: Companies now staff 1 or 2 editors rather than constantly paying for articles. Editor's roles are to generate AI articles and edit them. Or even easier, one editor is paid to scan submitted (likely AI made) articles to ensure it's decent and nothing inappropriate has been snuck in.
why do you need a company then
@@coins_png a company can be small you know
I feel that the thing people always forget about AI generated content is the reliance on existing work for it to mimic. Because there is so much content out there (such as these kinds of game journalism articles) it is easy for it to take that and replicate it. Take that base away though…
You right
I don't think you understand, 99% percent of work is all based on reference and already existing knowledge and art, it's the same thing.
But the base exists, so what's your point?
@@malikwilliams8643 The point is that if you did take away the base, the AI would be useless. That's why REAL artists are still important.
@Gabriel Raphi I could teach a 10 year old to write a article in like 15 minutes. Take the training data away and its worthless.
Game artist here. Most artist's jobs are actually safe from AI for the time being because of copywrite issues.
Let's say you work for an indi company, and they hire you to make a desert using AI art. You do it and the final product looks pretty good, so you use it in game. Whoops, turns out that desert was from Star Wars and now you have Disney breathing down your neck.
Companies won't take that chance, it's safer to use a real artist because there's no telling what images the AI art is going to pull from. The solution is to create an art bank of images that are made to be used by individual AI programs specifically. Which means that over time, more artists will be hired to make pieces for the art bank, which can always be improved by adding even more images.
My personal guess is that sometime in the future, you'll have to legally disclose that something (written or visual media, maybe other stuff too) is created by an AI. Maybe there will even be a law that these AI algorithms have to include something within their output that identifies it as a product of AI, and attempts at removing it afterwards will be a violation of the FCC and similar governmental bodies in other countries. If not, there'll probably be a lot of resources poured into methods to detect the use of AI. People are definitely going to want to be able to differentiate between human and artificial creations, same as they want to be able to differentiate between real and artificial diamonds.
AI detection and evasion is already happening across the world( many people are wearing clothes that throw off facial detection cameras because AI is stupid and one thing is slightly off, it breaks and shows you garbage)
What if someone just builds his own version that doesn't have the disclosure rule ? Not like you really could tell otherwise, soooooooo.......
@@jeanremi8384 there will be algorithms to detect algorithmically generated art.
@@jeanremi8384 I think you're misunderstanding. That could be done with the already existing ones, too, by just manually removing the identifier. The point is, there would be severe legal repercussions for doing so.
You make a good point about the potential need to differentiate between human and AI-generated content in the future. However, I would argue that it will be impossible to discern human vs AI speech in the future. As AI technology continues to advance, it is likely that AI will be able to generate speech that is indistinguishable from human speech. This is because AI algorithms are capable of learning from large amounts of data, and can use this data to generate speech that sounds natural and human-like. Additionally, AI algorithms can be trained on specific voices and accents, allowing them to generate speech that sounds like it is coming from a particular person. As a result, it is possible that in the future, it will be impossible to tell the difference between AI-generated speech and human speech, making the use of watermarks or other identifying features unnecessary.
A few thoughts I have:
1. The use of AI-generated content is going to have to be regulated by laws, and every article written by an AI should have to be legally disclosed.
2. While AI can detect patterns through algorithm, it is not in itself capable of abstract thought. It does not possess a moral compass.
3. If this becomes mainstream, it could generate a wave of misinformation, as people are going to care more about money and kicks than truth and responsibility.
One possibility is that artists and journalists end up going to lawmakers and bringing this up, pointing out how it has cost them their jobs. Politicians see an opportunity to gain support from them, and this becomes a political topic as society seeks to regulate AI-generated content.
Fully agree with this. I think we could go one step further and put tags on AI vs Human generated art. Maybe meta content of an image that tells us who created it, and an api for websites to use so whenever you come across an image you can tell if it's an AI or human picture
A big reason why journalism is especially at risk is because in modern journalism, most articles and headlines are written by algorithm already. Journalists just make sure to add certain keywords to show up on google searches.
Also another big issue about AI generated art is that most AI generators illegally use other artists' copyrighted art as a base to create their pictures.
They do not do so illegally, it's analyzing the outputs of the image files to construct mathematical models of commonalities between different images associated with different words. The resulting dataset and the outputs of AI art generation are well-below the substantial similarity test for fair use (since the data "about" any particular piece is either sub-1% of it. Or might even be considered to be "factual information" which is uncopyrightable.)
Art Ethics and Copyright are concerned with outputs, not inputs.
That's not how a GAN works. It isn't merging two images together. It's not applying filters to an image. There is no base image. It's creating a new work from noise by nudging the noise around until the neural network thinks it's gotten what you asked for. You can be upset that this stuff is automated now, but at least understand what it's not doing. It's not copying anything.
@@noname-gp6hk
And where does the neural network get that info?
From actual humans and their work. The only difference is the AI is specifically constructed for that purpose while a human has free will; one is literally an algorithm generated piece designed to get the best responses while the latter is genuinely inspired
@@warlordofbritannia Yea but unfortunately all AI is doing is looking at an image and learning the style. Then drawing. Like a human could do in years, but it only takes AI less than a second to draw. Its unfair yes and I really dont like it but AI is basically a human sped up a million times. That being said it becomes a product as it is, and styles of products can be legally protected. So maybe in future artists will be paid for their styles in training for certain AIs but already too late
@@warlordofbritannia and where did the human learn to draw? From other people and their work.
I'm just not seeing a difference. I don't care what made something that looks cool. I just don't care.
Woah the AI wrote a better introduction for my university assignment than I did. This shit's fucking wild.
My videos r way better than penguinz0
For a second there I almost started to get mad that Kotaku or whatever site would write something so ridiculous and I had to remind myself that it was AI generated.
I legitimately used the OpenAI to generate a Research Paper, turned it in and got a 94
how did you do that? legit might have to try it. did you have to feed it the sources?
@@pookiedookiedoo I just told it to write a research paper about the book i intended, and it automatically had lines cited from the book too
With their type of writing, it would reduce unnecessary waste.
*Ok_Dont_Read_My_Names!!.*
......
Ratio + k-pop better + mbappe the goat + mbappe better than haaland 🤓🤓🤓
Kinda based, but we should try to not glorified AI taking over people jobs
The thing with A.I. or any ML-related work is the amount of work happening behind the scenes. These systems don't just churn out professional level work with a click of a button. These systems go through insane amounts of data, as well as backend stuff like algorithms and the architecture, which can take a significant amount of time and computing resources.
But even to that extent, the system is only as good as the data its trained on. So when you see the amazing output of these systems, keep in mind that that wouldn't be possible without years, decades, and maybe even centuries of human creativity as input.
People used to say robots would take all the labor jobs but in reality AI is going to take all of the office jobs faster 🤣
Glad to see all the people making fun of Laborers get a rude awakening 🤣🤣
It's because the jobs requiring manual labor result in too much wear and tear of the expensive machine components.
Lol I was just thinking about this.
It turns out that if your job involves inputting things into a computer, or applying reason, or knowledge, AI has already shown the ability to replace that. People who don't think it can have not talked to these new large language models.
It still seems bizarre but laborers are protected by the fact that somebody still has to build complex mechanical devices to do any given task in the physical world. Turns out all it takes to replace computer workers is to deploy a new software package.
We're in for a wild ride lads. One of those 'if I didn't laugh about it I'd be crying' moments.
@@noname-gp6hk >It still seems bizarre but laborers are protected by the fact that somebody still has to build complex mechanical devices to do any given task in the physical world.
It's even more bizzare considering that most of those laborers are one bad immigration policy away from being yeeted out of job market, but they STILL act smug about it.
And then AI will come for labor jobs, too and you can be homeless just like the rest of us.
Its not just game journalism, its all of journalism that's gonna change overnight.
People selling AI art related services that were trained on copyright works, the millions of collective hours of hard work from artists, and then just ignoring the copyright on their works is seriously disgusting to me. It's absurd that it's just being pushed forward so quickly without stopping to consider that without the artists, none of this would be possible. If they want to feed their own licensed works into a model, then go for it, but this is beyond the veil. I say this as a software engineer.
You're missing the point why the power structure pushes this... it is to destroy us and make us spiritually bankrupt golem. Think "BlackRock"... They don't care, they relish in it, and the golem support them. It's not conspiracy theory, it's just legal definition conspiracy that they want to gut us into simulacra.
The model doesn't contain any images... it just has parameters it built from recognizing patterns same way as a human artist. And you can't copyright a style.
@@DA-cl4ww I think the problem is using datasets of copyrighted work to then make profit from the model that’s created off that dataset. It’s not a direct rip off, but it is directly using copyrighted work without consent for profit.
As a musician, the premise you're proposing is absurd that because AI based its style off of existing artists' works, it's now disgusting?
Musicians have been doing this since the classical era and before that, and no one bats an eye. In fact, its encouraged among songwriters. As the person above me mentioned, you also can't copyright a style.
If AI art was replicating other ppl's art, fair enough then yeah, down with AI. But that's not the case, it's just making more art in their style
@@DA-cl4ww Your reading comprehension needs work. That's not the point I made. I'm saying selling services trained on other people's work which were copyrighted is reprehensible even if it's currently legal.
Also, technically you don't know what those models are storing. They are massive feature arrays which turn borderline into black boxes. It's like running SVD, taking the top vectors which account for 99% of an image and saying "it doesn't store the image." In some ways, these models are just compressed versions of the ingested data.
My New Media classes have started to revolve around this. We talked about chatGPT last week and talked about how it technically isn’t plagiarism and we can totally use it in other classes. I used it to write my entire final paper for one of my other classes
Wouldn't it be considered academic dishonesty since it's not your original work, it's the use of a program to generate your work for you
@@TranscientFelix Yes, I do see where you are coming from. But where the ai is taking from all kinda of different sources, a professor cannot exactly check for plagiarism. The only problem I see down the road is if it becomes used alot, and everyones work starts looking the same
@@pubbyjosh8948 That's still academic dishonesty. What you're saying is that it's difficult to catch, but it's still dishonesty. What a professor would need to do is to compare the AI work to work that is definitely original from you to tell whether it's yours or a computer's.
Not plagiarism just plain cheating and dishonesty
My professors have said if you try it they'll fail you.
The day Charlie loses his youtuber job to an AI, we'll know we're screwed
My videos r way better than penguinz0
With how monotone Charlies voice is, I've seen some pretty convincing fake Charlie videos.
The Charlie AI videos are already super good, won’t be long now…
you know WE are the deciding factor in that, right? charlie would only become obsolete if people stopped watching him, so as long as we continue to support him over whatever ai
@@nyxanarchy
What if we’ve been watching an AI this whole time that stole his account though 0_o?
ive been an artist for over 20 years and seeing ai art is terrifying
It’s very bleak, I hate what the future looks like
That's what happens when you choose a sh-tty job, and a selfish one as well.
Dont be scared of it! I'm an artist too! I was scared at first but now think of all the amazing projects you could do with it! It's a tool anyone can use!
Same 😭
@@andresgarza8511what 🤣
All it was missing was the AI saying how they have always been a fan of the franchise lol.
Wanna know what's the funniest/scariest thing?
This is the most advanced AI...
That they let us *have access to.*
And they as in a commercial team that designed this, imagine what actual world governments have, this is the sort of sht the American military probably had 15 yrs ago
Yeah, this is just using GPT3.5, while GPT4 is rumored to be a MAJOR step up, and it's rumored to come out December-March.
@@MagikarpMan Ever played the game I Have no Mouth and I must scream. The main big bad is an AI used for military and it turned on humans with scary results.
My videos r way better than penguinz0
@jennes Most likely assumption to what "they" reffers to in this context is ai development companies and organizations. To list a few: Deep mind, OpenAI, Aifnet. Google, Amazon, and Microsoft also have ai research departments.
If you look up an interview with proko about ai, they interview a guy who works with these companies. He confirms that the current ai available to the public is generations behind what the research teams have access to. He that says that ALL jobs are predicted to be replaceable with ai by 2035. This is because there is ai being developed for the purpose of being able to develop better ai so the improvement is not linear but exponential.
im gonna be honest for a second, art is my passion and it’s one of the only things i have in my life. it’s the only way i see my future working out well outside of a cubicle type job which i want to avoid so bad. but if ai surpasses human art i don’t know what ill do
Maybe a role where you're driving the art direction in a project or something like that might be safe but if you're just doing like commissions then I could see u being screwed
Don’t sweat it all ai does is mesh pre existing art from real artist and the ai creators call it “original” it’s just blatant theft.
People have said similar about many different jobs before that became obsolete.
Making pornographic art would be your only option.
@@mainstream2226 you know you can?? learn how to do art?? whenever you want?? you are completely capable of it??? right this moment???
"From the moment i understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me"
Damn kinda relieved I dropped out of art school now but holy shit do I feel bad for artists getting their jobs taken. All those years of practice just for people to feed actual art to an AI that will ultimately take your job, it's all going to shit
Art is gonna be dead soon 😢
Just another step in human evolution like computer animation or digital drawings
@@Scott-kj3bc holy fuck that is sad you believe that
They can find an actual job now
@@jeremynicholson6073 those are completely different because they don’t take away the artist entirely. But now the artist is unneeded and average people can create art with no effort at all. Stop trying to make this seem like a good thing.
The crazy part for me is I already feel like Kotaku and IGN articles are AI generated, I always feel like there's no way an educated human with a writing degree wrote this trash.
Wow, that AI was really good at imitating a game journalist, It wrote all that without even playing the game
The poor AI being subjected to this nonsense lmao
True, but AI art physically can't exist without artists. it directly samples art and makes arrangements based on the pieces. There's a LOT of controversy surrounding AI artists using dead & non-willing artists' art, and that's theft alone.
it's also really bad at composition, although it COULD get better
Also, the art of creativity has been studied extensively. Creativity thrives under great stress. This might actually make humans push forward in our creativity as we have a larger force to compete against.
@@mystiqueisland777 or it's just gg for humans, how do you get better then the current art level there is now improving from what we have now the only thing that can be improved is from each individual artist getting better at their craft, cutting down on time it would take to draw etc and getting better little by little. You're witnessing the beginning of the end for artist. I wouldn't be surprised if we begin to see less and less artist year by year.
It doesn't directly sample art. The database it's trained on has 5 billion images so there's no way they can be stored in the program.
In a very simplified explanation, it basically learns to denoise training images from just a description of the original image, which get more noisy until it's basically pure noise. Then you can give it random noise with no original image and describe anything and it will denoise a "hallucinated" image from the random noise.
@@ideal2334 id have to wonder if this is a genuine joke bc AI art physically can't thrive without actual artists to sample from. AI is good but not nearly good enough to replace creativity based niches
i want to be an animator in the future, and honestly i'm kind of scared if people can somehow advance ai to the point where it understands how animation and its principles work.
It's pretty much already at that point if you look at the most current research. Although animators might be in a more secure position since the most ideal situation is to still do the key framing while the AI fills in all the tedious work that is frankly hundreds upon hundreds of hours a work regimen to produce. In a sense it could be a tool to liberate animators from physical restraints.
10-20 years from now you can just tell an AI what movie, anime, tv show, song or opera you want to see/listen and it creates it. You want a Sci-Fi Diablo with the story telling of Witcher 3 on a planet with a different civilization? AI will get you that in an evening.
AI is already extremely good at making 2d/3d scenes, and in many cases it can handle complex lighting much better and faster than some leading 3d rendering softwares. It performs scary well in light transmission through glass geometry and such.
It’s also making huge strides in creating realistic motion by itself. There have been programs which can make a proper animation only using a few key frames and some descriptions, the AI does all of the work after that.
However, I could see it being a great tool for animators as well. The AI 3d rendering is an amazing piece of tech. For some animators they may like using AI for animating monotonous scenes to help them push out content faster.
It’s the most double edged sword I’ve ever heard of. Right now it’s a useful tool that still requires a human animator, in the future when it can spit out a full length episode that’s when shit goes bad.
@@YISP7 hear me out I have a bit of a conspiracy theory here: I bet it was that godawful GoT season 8 that shifted the universe into this timeline, ML engineers were so enraged they started to think "How can I fix this with mathematics"
thank christ this isn't how general ai works, usually it gets it points of data for use from reference, so the chance that it might follow these principles is more to it copying the references
each day becomes more like serial experiments lain and it terrifies me
We're actually in the point of humanity where robots can take over humans jobs
and if humans were smart and not lazy to want things on demand, we can stop it before it progresses before we're all out of a job
@@savageratentertainment Why would you want a job in a world where you dont need a job? I know there are millionairs who still work because they are fucking insane, but leave the rest of us subsistance workers alone.
@@Somerandomguy524 poor people exist 🗿
@@Somerandomguy524 in a world where there is no jobs how will the majority of people make money? In that case they will have to depend on the government or the rich to support their families. We are talking about 100s of millions of people I don't see how that will benefit the normal people of society. Unless they come up with some form of income or a way that we don't need income which doesn't seem plausible yet.
@@Somerandomguy524 because there is literal pride in working hard on something? Why wouldn't I want to work hard for something I've done? Unless this was a sarcastic comment since it's hard to tell these days what is and isn't.
I mean if people WANT to be lazy so be it, but leave the real hard workers who studied years in the field alone and not take the job away.
I remember learning about AI spreading misinformation through articles. There was one guy making a bunch of AI political articles and the articles looked like it was written from a person.
Also (off topic form what i said) I think AI Art shouldn't be allowed to win art contests, I think it's kind of scummy since a lot of people spent a lot fo time mastering their talent. But someone who just wrote a prompt, and it takes from different artists pieces of work to make AI work. Because the AI isn't making it from scratch, it legit takes from artists.
@@kon9729 you are not a clown,you are the entire circus
@@kon9729 that person who out 12 minutes into it and still got a good piece of art, something good enough to win thr contest, probably put 10's of 1000's of minutes into learning how to do that. The person that used Ai didnt
@@kon9729 Good point, but it still feels unfair. It's like a trans girl joining the female olympics or whatever women's tournament that relies on physical power/agility. It's unfair advantage.
I wonder how you would realize if a comment or social media post is AI generated if the prompt is taylored to post or video its under.
But isn't all arts are derivative of others arts. Cause you have to have something beforehand to take inspiration from
Yup, new laws should be set up to protect jobs from AI. This is getting ridiculously scary.
no its just making the world better if you think about it, have them do all of our dirty work for us tht we dont wanna do
@@thegamingcrew4500 Then how do you make money if the AI is doing the labor? Beg?
@@tylere.8436 I guess you're just going to have to figure out how to restructure society for post-scarcity world because entities that use AI will outperform those that don't. I don't know exactly how to do that but maybe an AI would.
@@tylere.8436 The new jobs will be to train and maintain AI
Ok luddite
The fact that IGN just rated Choo Choo Charles a 4/10 makes me feel like that AI is already in place
As someone who’s hoping to be an animator within the next 10 years I fear the jobs just gunna get taken over by computers.
You know the job it absolutely cannot take away, the fucking editor who has to look through the animation and see if it has a flow, the animations are drawn correctly, the character models are consistent throughout frames. The ai is only doing your job of drawing faster, it's drawing beautifully faster, and it'll draw like shit faster. You'll never run out of a job, specifically because the niche market is always going to exist. The studios hate anything but money so they're incentivised to fire as many people away so that they can make profits and exploit the remaining workforce. That's what's gonna happen in 10 years.
y'know how people go crazy for 'organic food'? hopefully human-drawn animations will be thought of as better in some way
You still need human input
Imagination cannot be recreated, original styles cannot be imitated and processed.
@@alphetti4348 DALL-E can literally recreate art in famous artists artstyles, though? It can even mix them and in the future, it could likely have a feature present where you can "feed" it content to base its work on. We already have that as an option with another AI generator called WOMBOAI where you can insert images and chose how much it pulls from the image to remake into another. With more tweaking and tool combination, this is possible.
Wombo also has another feature where it can take human faces and animate them moving and lip syncing to music and voices as seen in one of their apps they have. Imagine that with the image feeder plus the prompt connection of something like chatGPT they could eventually take the animators job. It's about taking everything and finding a way to fuse it all into one.
I feel like AI would have a better understanding of gaming than the average game journalist lmfao
The whole Game Journos thing aside, it is worrying how far AI is advancing, and how some people consider it to be an amazing thing, because what it really does is scan what already exists and mashes it up enough times for something passable to come out. Not only it works exclusively from the work that already exists, made by real people, but it also serves as a poor replacement for real art, because it doesn't really learn the techniques that real artists use, but it's just passable enough and cheap to use that it might just become mainstream anyway.
Something similar happened to translating works, where using an app or google translate on different languages doesn't really do a proper job conveying all the exact meanings those words might have in a different language, but due to it being cheaper and more accessible to people, became the standard, and in turn it got worse because of it. So yeah, this is bad news.
The thing is humans do exactly the same thing, we scan everything that already exists and try to mesh them together until something good comes out. That's literally how humans learn and create.
If you think google translate is bad and that we need a human to do it then I think you're delusional
@@slbhugomarques2 that's exactly why it's called a neural network, it's supposed to mimic human mechanism of learning
@@SuperSpajky Well AI started trying to replicate human brains way more in the past. It failed and ai developers dialed it back
Yeah, people say "oh but that's what humans do", but humans are more willing to push the boundaries and do less predictable things. The rise of AI productions means we can expect things to be bland and safe. It does a great job of making things in existing styles, but won't meaningfully take anything to new places
I spent close to an hour researching a programming problem on stackoverflow and other sources, and after getting super frustrated by poor results in the end I posed the question to ChatGPT as a hail mary "What do I have to lose?" situation. It literally answered it. The answer wasn't completely perfect, but it did 90% of the work and got me where I needed to be. I'm both amazed and scared by how good AI is getting.
Thank you for mentioning the AI art part, but I wished you'd also have mentioned the fact that the AI produces these works by generating generalized information from thousands of other human artists who did not consent to their work being used to make a tool like this. That is the other major concern here. These are general AIs, they can't make art from nothing like a human can, they are producing work that is basically the congealed and warped versions of many other artist's works.
Is that also not what a human does? Are every artist's works not simply just a reflection of the their own experiences and their viewings of all of humanity's creations. Humans cannot create without stimulus or without learning, or perception
@@charlieward5439 It is not. Before explaining that, allow me to ask this: If the way an AI uses references is comparable to the way a human artist does, why would we ever strip the human of the enjoyment of making art and give it to an AI? This isn't a monotonous retail job devoid of enjoyment, it's something people do because they love it. This enjoyment can even work two ways: someone comissioning an artist gets joy from receiving the art they commissioned and the artist gets to indulge in their passion while also receiving compensation for their efforts.
This is assumming these processes are comparable, but the reality is they are not by means of how they collect references and how they are used.
Starting in reverse order; when looking at references, artists and people in general do not naturally have the ability is create complete, identiacal copies of these references on a whim. Not matter how many works by an artist you use, even if they are right infront of you, you will not be able to perfectly recreate their work. On the off chance you CAN do this, then you already have the experience to be an artist in your own right and you have achieved this through your own toil and trials. If you fed an AI every work by an artist, let's say Da Vinci, and then asked it to recreate the Last Supper, it could make a perfect recreation. An AI can recreate any style, so long as it has been trained on it enough. A beginner artist by contrast, will need to toil for long before they can even come close to mimicing the works of others. If they can recreate Michelangelo well enough it becomes hard to tell the difference between a fake and the original, they have have shown their skill despite the illegality of their actions.
A human artist collects references generally has more focus, looking for references for specific things that will be present in the final works. Someone drawing a sword isn't going to need references of a wheel UNLESS a wheel is going to be in the drawing. Artists also actively seek out these references on their own, no one is telling them "These are pictures of what a sword is, use them as references", as they know what they are looking for. When an AI references something, it is pulling from a massive collection of images and their respetive descriptions that it has been trained on. The AI itself doesn't understand how it knows a sword from a wheel, it just does this, and cannot easily be trained on new data without being retrained from the ground up. If an AI can tell a sword from a wheel but you want it to draw a shield, the AI must be retrained from the ground up on a modified or new dataset with images and descriptions of swords, wheels AND shields. Imagine if a human who wanted to draw a knight had to relearn the look, use and purpose of everything associated with a knight (armour, weapons, AND what a knight is) just to draw one.
On that subject, these datasets are often massive, dwarfing the number of references an artist would use for all the works they made in their entire life. The amount of data they have can number in the BILLIONS. Laion, a dataset collection Stable Diffusion was trained on (just one of them mind you), has Laion-5B which is around 5 billion image links and associated descriptions. The issueis everything and anything can find there way into these datasets because the categorization is indiscriminate. Copywrited works and even PRIVATE MEDICAL IMAGES have been found in 5B. While the latter is bad enough, those copywrited works are where it gets concerning because these are works that a normal person could not copy to a personal blog without possible legal risks. This is were I would like to make a point VERY clear:
The issue is not the AIs but the dataset they are trained on and the people behind both.
Laion is able to get away with using copywrited works because their status as a German non-profit company, which affords them certain legal exemptions that other for-profit companies would face. This data, derived from another non-profit company called Common crawl, is now being used IN for-profit projects like Stable Diffusion whose creator, Stability AI, funded a large part of Laion. They are using a complex web of companies to skirt around the law, abusing these legal exemptions for their own gain. Worse is, some AIs have not release any information about which datasets they've have used, meaning we have no idea what public or private contents these AIs have been exposed to.
Human artists and AIs do not operate the same, as the AIs have access to stuff normal people would not and use them in ways that would lead a normal person to face legal ramifications for. These AIs, thorough the use of loopholes, make use of non-profit privledges to gather date to be funneled into projects by for-protif companies while those non-profit companies are being supported by the same for-profit companies using their data.
Edit: spelling corrections
@@pipes2051 you literally didn't answer the question, explained AI badly enough that I feel like you don't really know much about how learning algorithms work, and posed an entirely unrelated question. AI learn by viewing datasets and then finding and creating associations between different variables which describe the datasets (the more times the association is made, the stronger the association). This is not entirely dissimilar to how the brain recognises patterns and learns. It then uses this to create whatever people ask it for based on prompts. Why is an AI learning off of intellectual property so wrong? It does not copy the property, it only views it. An artist does not have full legal control over what anyone can do with their intellectual property and their IP's likeness, only over other people either making money off of their IP, people pirating it, or people distributing it without their consent, depriving them of income. This is how it should be, no one should have legal control over what a private individual wishes to say, draw, or write. If I choose to train an AI off of other people's intellectual property as a private citizen, attempting to use legal means to stop me would be a VAST overreach of the law on individual freedom.
@@charlieward5439 The issue with an AI using copyrighted works for training is that they are not private individuals who are exempt from legal risk (so long as they are not used in a way the brings). They are the products of for-profit companies. These companies have no legal right to make use of copyrighted material, especially those by other companies, or images of private information in their products. They get around this by using data gathered by, and in many cases providing funding for, non-profit companies who compile the collections used to train their AI. They have access to materials the average person would not. If an artist used images of medical documentation, especially those pertaining to specific people, they would bringing legal action upon themselves if ever found out. What legal action would this imply? I don't know; part because I am not a legal expert in any measure and part because it depends on location.
As for how AI actually learn, it seems similar on the surface. But this hinges on AI and humans experiencing stimuli in ways that are identical or at least very close. If a human were to see an image of, lets say a spider, they could still recognize a spider if they saw one in a video or in real life. If they were to see something that looks simliar to a spider in some way, like an ant or a scorpion, they would recognize it is not a spider. AI cannot do the same thing. An AI trained to recognize spiders using images can only recognize spiders within images. If you were to show it a video of a spider, it would not be able to recognize the spiders in it. Additionally, show it an image of an ant or scorpion, it will be confident it is a spider. If you wanted the AI to recognize the differences between spiders, ants and scorpions, you would need to retrain the AI with images and descriptions for all three. Same goes for recognizing both images and videos.
Also, a person's perception of an object or concept can be changed. If a person who has positive or neutral feelings on spiders is bitten by one, that experience goes on to change their perception of spiders in a (usually) negative way. AIs do not have perceptions of objects and concepts the way humans do nor can be changed by experience. If an AI associates spiders with negative feelings, its because it was told that by someone who has or understands those associations.
This is because, at their base, humans are only good at pattern recognition and learning/adaptation while AI (and computers in general) are only good at data storage and arithemtic. When an human artist creates a drawing, they are pulling on experiences and images they have obtained over their life. New experiences can easily be added to a person's mind and old experinces can coloured by new experinces, alongside the feelings associated with the experiences. When an AI is asked to make an image, it does so by drawing on data it was taught to recognize. If it is asked to do something outside what it has been taught, it will not be able to do so without being retrained on data that includes the new addition. It can certainly TRY to do so, but the results won't be akin to what anyone would expect from a human artist.
Belive me when I say this: I do not have much issue with the existence of these AIs. However, I have seen too many over hyper advocates using this same argument to put down artists concerned with both their futures and how these companies are using their art.
@@pipes2051 you are actually just wrong about how AI create from prompts, they do not store any of the data that they are trained on, they simply learn from the data and are then able to create requests from what they have learned from the data. They do not store the data from the dataset. You seem to think too, that humans are born with innate ability which they are not, if you were to isolate a human from external stimulus whilst they were young and teach them only to recognise spiders, then show him an ant (which he'd never seen before), you would also find, funnily enough, he would also probably say it was a spider. You seem to view learning algorithms in the same way you view standard operations in a computer, but it's really not that simple.
If a human ands up with a phobia of spiders from being bitten, this is most likely because of the association the brain has made between recognising a spider and the pain from being bitten, this is an unconscious association and the person with said phobia does not recognise why they have the phobia. You can actually do a similar thing with learning algorithms, if you take a learning algorithm which has been built to navigate a play space with a sprite and accomplish a goal, but has a health value which makes it fail it's goal if the health value hits zero and put spiders in it's play space as well, it will not have any positive, nor negative reaction to the spiders at all. However, if you suddenly change the rules of the play space so that the algorithm's sprite can be damaged by the spiders, you will see it learn very quickly that spiders should be avoided and it will avoid them at all costs, same as a human who has been bitten. Interestingly, both the human and the Algorithm, unless explicitly instructed to do so will each avoid any spiders aggressively, even if the spiders are no longer able to inflict damage or will not bite as both has made the association between the spiders and pain/damage. The only difference in these two cases is that a human would say that the human's reaction is emotional whereas the machine's is not, however, it is an interesting differentiation to make as the basic premise is practically identical, the only real difference is the relative complexity and disparity in imperfection between the brain and a learning algorithm
I always thought that the fear of AI taking away jobs was just overblown but I'm honestly legit nervous about how far it's going go and just completely fuck over people
It's only bad cuz capitalism wont get you money if they do take over and you'd be left with nothing
It's going that far because of what's on the internet currently. That means people do, it imitates. We have not unlocked originality for ai. It's not gonna generate anything new that isn't inspired from something it has "seen" previously. Guys every single industry has seen automation remove the mediocre only jobs, those which can be done faster without humans. Anything that requires a functioning brain it cannot do. It's the same for creating code in the software industry as well. The entry level jobs are gonna go to some AI which is gonna mulch a massive dataset and start writing code like it's the hottest fresher from MIT, but it's not going to replace the manager even.
@@SpiritGear well, unfortunately, communism won't work because with jobs getting limited, some people are gonna want to do other stuff than what they can do, leading to overall anger and possible civil wars.
Also, most Americans are extremely FOR capitalism. I'd like to see you try to make america turn communist
Its not overblown. Robots have been taking away our jobs from a long time. First the factories got automated and all those factory labour jobs evaporated. Now the same thing is happening with software.
This is happening with editors, capcut is making edits for people and changing the oversaturation of the editing community. Real editors who make stuff themselves have no meaning
as an artist this has terrified me but my younger brother is a musician and had a really interesting view of it. He compared it to how musicians were terrified when all the sample sounds and beats came out that they would all be out of jobs by computers, but instead they found it made their work easier and enhanced it. So instead of seeing AI art as taking over, use it as your sample sounds. Thats free resources for you right there at your fingertips! If you want a certain mood but don't know quite what to draw run a few prompts and get inspired! Or take some AI art and improve it! Combine them! *They are free assets for you, use them to make your life easier and better just like the music industry did* , don't let them destroy you. Cause AI can be amazing but humans can always take what they make and adapt
That's a bad analogy. It's less like sample sounds and more like a full song. You can't actually just take a full song and use it as yours with a few tweaks without being a bit scummy.
I agree. I believe it will be groundbreaking for society and we'll need to make some changes but I don't see it as a bad thing. Being able to create such beauty with such ease using AI and then on top of that enhance it with your own intelligence! There's still people that don't think 3D modelers are artists because they use a computer. But obviously we consider them artists and it a job. And besides, this AI can create something "new" using all of its inputs but it's not discovering real new things or making real new things. Moreover, I remember when they used OpenAI on LOL's best NA player and he said he wanted to use this to become better because its a perfect tool for teaching you what to improve. Lastly, even if AI does reach a stage where its sentient can create new things without inputs then why not work with it? Why are we all scared of being replaced? There's always something you can add to any project no matter your skill level.
It still depends. For now it'll probably make jobs easier but companies will always go for the cheaper option and if an AI can do the job, it'll mean the death of a lot of jobs.
Yea musicians generally seem to have a solid understanding of this. FOSS types as well.
Notice that its mostly the same artists that supported sample sounds now complaining about AI taking over music - its how you know most of it is all bullshit. Its always about getting rid of competition, not love for the art itself. This is why i support the idea of Piracy. They don't care about actual art, they're after the money, hence why anyone being able to re-create their art in a better way is deemed a threat. Its why most art today is dogshit, most games are trash and most modern music is bland and cringe - there isn't any financial incentive to improve dogshit art that you create due to anti-competitive IP laws.
How many tons of game franchises have you seen ruined completely due to title rights and never allowed to launch past open source?
"Command and Conquer" was my favorite RTS game franchise, but then got acquired by EA, CnC4 was the death of the game after a mediocre CnC3 release. Hardcore fans didn't give up and some went on to create Renegade X based off of CnC renegade as well OpenRa based off of CnC classics(both not created by EA). They were forced to be open source by EA which used IP rights laws to prevent them from selling the games, which could have led to better quality of those games.
Never forget, these artists don't care a damn about art at all, they care solely about making money. What sort of artist that cares about art would tell another to not make art? Unless of course, that he doesn't care about art at all, and feels threatened that he will not get any money should the other artist succeed and become popular!
The issue with the AI art is that from what I’ve seen and heard from the art community is that it’s stealing art to form it’s “ new “ pieces. I’m no artist but that’s what I’m hearing from a lot of artists
They're just jealous that computers are better than them
@@GrabbandeseNuts bro I clicked on your profile and one of your comments on this channel is about how a black person obviously made a song about cheating your opinion holds no value
Yeah a lot of the AI art you see online is most likely done by using other people's art as a basis. You can see tons of AI pictures that are basically the same as the picture it was based on minus the few adjustments to change the character to someone else.
@@GrabbandeseNuts not at all, its literally stealing their art. It doesnt take einstein to know that that is morally corrupt. Everything you do will be taken over by ai, so enjoy it while making fun of artist ig
@@GrabbandeseNuts It’s an attack on intellectual property laws tho - in the future only big companies will own the rights to anything. People are excited at the prospect of suddenly being able to tell their story without realising that in a sea of garbage content their story won’t matter and nothing they “make” will ever be their own.
Just 5 years ago, people were still impressed that ai could play a board game better than humans. The amount of development that has occurred in these past few years is truly insane.
My videos r way better than penguinz0
If game journalists does use ai for their articles in the future. Then wouldn't the artical just feel pointless now that we know its computer generated?
This day Amazons AMM42X is clearly setting up the new milestone! The only real way to counter the current recession is by acting on yourself, making own decisions and making sure that you got enough no matter what happens. If you trust conventional ways you might end up being homeless or worse at one day, seriously.. This is why I believe in projects like this one which are clearly there to make a difference and it starts right now
Bot
@@Foxyy01 lol
The AI are taking the commenters' jobs too!
Even though AI has developed to an impressive level, I think that this "issue" says more about the abysmal state of game journalism than AI development
I don't think that actually good journalists have anything to worry about, yet
Also imagine what AI can do on quantum computers. It’s gonna be absolutely insane.
AI is definitely limited by classical computer architecture and storage capacity. With quantum computing you can execute computations in parallel that emulates the human mind. It'll definitely be used to accelerate our understanding of physics.
There's a strong misunderstanding on the benefits and purpose of quantum computers. It's not simply running a bunch of things in parallel, its applications are pretty niche
I'm wondering if this is a case of the AI being genuinely impressive at the tasks given to it or that the majority of journalists are actually just terrible at their jobs and we've all just grown accustomed to it.
Maybe reality is somewhere in the middle, but I'm not entirely sure I'd be worried JUST yet. The day I see AI writing Stephen King books or JRR Tolkien level novels in both length and complexity is when I'm REALLY going to start panicking. The problem with this game journalist article thing isn't that an AI wrote it, it's that ANYONE could have written it. If you asked any random person to write an article based off the same prompt, I guarantee most people would be able to come up with something similar with pretty minimal effort.
Real journalism isn't something that an AI can write because real journalism requires work, getting in the weeds, and taking genuine risk. An AI, for all its advances, still can't embed itself with soldiers fighting in Ukraine, or travel to other countries to interview dictators, or delve into libraries of history to research a book about Margaret Thatcher.
I think your first sentance hit's the nail on the head. It's not the advancement of AI that's highlighted here, it's just how bad game journos have gotten at their jobs, that a few key words punched into an AI can replicate what a Kotaku article would look like word for word. The problem is game journos don't put in the extra effort anymore. They take 20 minutes, put together a quick 3 minute read based on something they woke up feeling offended about, and submit it to Kotaku, and then we get to see it. There is no attention to detail or extra effort put in. If there was, any human would be able to see the difference.
I saw someone give AI personalities of different Persona characters and set up chat rooms with them, and someone had two different AI characters talk to each other by sending their messages to the other AI. And upon having the plan explained to them, the AI’s could not only comprehend the experiment being conducted very well, but also had a positive opinion of it and found it “Very interesting”, the characters then had a full conversation about the morality and their opinions of the actions of the Phantom Theives from Persona 5. At the end one of the AI’s thanked the person for setting up the conversation and noted it as being interesting. It was really cool and also a bit scary to see how natural they acted
Bro im defently gonna use this for my school work if it ever becomes public to everyone
Ai art is definitely a concern for me because I was interested into going into an art career. These last couple years with nfts and ai art has really made me rethink that.
noone's job is safe they are actually working on ai's that can programm too
I would say to just do it as a hobby. That's what I'm doing. Never really sought to go into an art career, and now it's heavily discouraging with all the AI art
Ai is a tool. Use it as one as an artist, adapt how to work.
@@kolliwanne964 i agree that AI can be used as a tool, but you never really see a lot of these people using it as such. They mostly just generate an AI image and then claim themselves as artists
@@atomicaftershow And it shows. If you lose your income because whoever used to buy your art is content with buying generic crap, then maybe you shouldnt try to compete with a crap producing machine.
I hope Charlie looks into the AI Art situation more than the level of description he started with. AI Art only works how it does because people use prompts to deliberately steal work from specific artists. The AI isn't doing the brush strokes, it's using someone else's work as a template. AI written language on the other hand makes a lot more sense because it can generate the grammatical structures and parse its sentences by adding words and phrases in the correct place.
Now we just need AI to take over reviewing movies for Rotten Tomatoes
Recently heard about OpenAI, and saw some of the code it can produce. Even though it (probably) can't create something extremely specific like "in java, create an efficient web server that picks a random 3d objects from and renders it in 3d on the web page"... but it's got me worried if in 10 years, will there even be any programming jobs required that don't consist of fixing/writing better AIs to write all the software we use
That AI is a life saver, used it on a paper that was due in class and the teacher was none the wiser
I've been using the OpenAI GPT-3 model for 2 years now, in the playground beta test platform, and it was so dumb back in 2020. Seeing the evolution it made in 2 years, and knowing that the model ChatGPT is using is dated from July, 2020, I can't wait to see what happens in the next few years, but I'm also scared. I'm also so glad that it went viral, it had me amazed for some time, but the fact that now they've integrated it into a chat and put a GUI on it is amazing.
My videos r way better than penguinz0
AI art defeats the purpose of art....real art will always have a place
Artists will go the way of the horse trainer, which still exists but far less of them now and it's more of a hobby than a job title for most.
But why is ai art better than real art
i think people will separate ai art and artists
@@TonyTheTaco0830 bad bait
Really? In near future we wont be no longer able to tell the difference. It does not really matter.
What I’m wondering about is that if people can just put in a prompt telling an AI to have an opinion on something for them instead of writing it themself, does that really have any value as a written work? I personally don’t think so.
"The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed". Some people are going to benefit way more from this then others and that really sucks. AI should make the world a better place for everyone.
It's terrifying how powerful AI can be used for good or evil
So can math and science and we all use them every day.