AI doesn't have to be evil

[UsherFellig]

Butlerian Jihad

Had to Google that. Don't get out much.

Put it on my to-do list.

Ha, looking just now I see there is or was a series under that title by licensees to the original fictional "Dune" world created by Frank Herbert. I've never read any of the post-FH stuff. In the original novel the Butlerian Jihad was referenced as a historical event that occurred far in the past. Supposedly Frank Herbert came up with that name as a tip of the hat to author Samuel Butler and Butler's novel "Erewhon," which had themes concerning the dangers to humanity of untrammeled technology and thinking machines.

The term isn't universally known, of course, but has gotten much wider currency since Frank Herbert's day due to countless "Dune" novels by others after his death, plus the recent monster hit "Dune" films and one or two limited series on cable or streaming or whatever.

One of the ironies of the Butlerian Jihad was that the "Dune" universe was one in which humans were dependent for intergalactic navigation not on technology as with the computer "HAL" in "2001: A Space Odyssey," but on navigators from an alien species who navigated the far reaches of space by consuming a drug ("spice") produced on the planet Arrakis, aka Dune. A war over which unleashed a whole different jihad, a religious one, on the universe at the end of the original novel.

 

[DavidMillier]

I've read the first novel in the series "Dune" four times (and the hilarious National lampoon parody "Doon") but I have never been able to get past the first few pages of the sequel "Dune Messiah" for some reason.

Kevin Anderson who wrote many of the follow up books after Herbert died, is a writer I came across in his series "Saga of the Seven Suns". I thought it execrable, but for some reason I managed to commit to 6 of the 7 books of the main series before I eventually saw sense. The story was terrible, SF from someone who appeared to know SF only from TV, not from reading the masters from a young age. Fantasy really, dressed up in SF clothes. The author's writing was of a similar standard, dashed off, and in dire need of a robust editor's hand. I'm not inspired by that experience to try anything else he has written. Maybe I should make another attempt at Dune Messiah.

 

[JimKasson]

Hi,

Maw dang. I hate when I do that!

Now, truly useful would be when AI says: I rewrote your code to fit in half the space and run twice as fast....

I have been known to write and test Matlab code with for statements, test it, and then ask ChatGPT to vectorize it. That works pretty well, even if the code is all little opaque. Not APL opaque, but in that direction.

What does vectorise mean?

In parallel computing, vectorization refers to a method of structuring code so that operations are performed in parallel, often using SIMD (Single Instruction, Multiple Data) hardware. In MATLAB, however, the term is also used (somewhat differently) to describe writing code so that operations are applied to entire arrays or matrices at once, avoiding explicit loops. This usage emphasizes concise syntax and performance optimization, even if the underlying execution is not explicitly parallel.

Example:







--

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

 

[JimKasson]

Generative AI is destroying artists' copyrights. It would not be able to create a single image if it weren't trained on the works of millions of artists worldwide, without their permission. Those lollipops weren't magically imagined by AI. It saw them somewhere and ingested that artist's IP.

The scale is different, but in concept this is not so different from aspiring artists copying the works of masters as training exercises, or even viewing many great works for the purpose of making better art.

We stand on the shoulders of giants in art as well as in other pursuits.

As photographers—and artists—ourselves, we should not be using and enabling this technology that wants to replace us.

You are anthropomorphizing.

But not before taking all of our work for itself.

 

[UsherFellig]

I've read the first novel in the series "Dune" four times (and the hilarious National lampoon parody "Doon") but I have never been able to get past the first few pages of the sequel "Dune Messiah" for some reason.

Kevin Anderson who wrote many of the follow up books after Herbert died, is a writer I came across in his series "Saga of the Seven Suns". I thought it execrable, but for some reason I managed to commit to 6 of the 7 books of the main series before I eventually saw sense. The story was terrible, SF from someone who appeared to know SF only from TV, not from reading the masters from a young age. Fantasy really, dressed up in SF clothes. The author's writing was of a similar standard, dashed off, and in dire need of a robust editor's hand. I'm not inspired by that experience to try anything else he has written. Maybe I should make another attempt at Dune Messiah.

I never wanted to bother with any of the non-Frank Herbert stuff, and only read the second two by Frank Herbert himself, one time for those two. Never took to it as a series. The original classic is the only one I've read multiple times and still re-read every few years. And every few years more and more of the ideas packed into it are revealed as amazingly prescient, even not counting the Butlerian Jihad.

 

[UsherFellig]

Generative AI is destroying artists' copyrights. It would not be able to create a single image if it weren't trained on the works of millions of artists worldwide, without their permission. Those lollipops weren't magically imagined by AI. It saw them somewhere and ingested that artist's IP.

As photographers—and artists—ourselves, we should not be using and enabling this technology that wants to replace us. But not before taking all of our work for itself.

The genie is out of the bottle and won't be going back in. I joked about the Butlerian Jihad, but despite evidence here and there of extreme reactionary currents in contemporary culture, I'd say the chances of something like that occurring in real life are remote. I think the odds are greater that we'd destroy ourselves playing with this technology, than the odds of any kind of a Butlerian revolution doing away with it.

No, the genie is out. The hope would be for a unanimous international agreement to strict limits on how it is employed. But that too is a remote possibility. It would be too intelligent and civilized for the species.

 

[DavidMillier]

Thanks!

 

[Rich42]

Generative AI is destroying artists' copyrights. It would not be able to create a single image if it weren't trained on the works of millions of artists worldwide, without their permission. Those lollipops weren't magically imagined by AI. It saw them somewhere and ingested that artist's IP.

As photographers—and artists—ourselves, we should not be using and enabling this technology that wants to replace us. But not before taking all of our work for itself.

The genie is out of the bottle and won't be going back in. I joked about the Butlerian Jihad, but despite evidence here and there of extreme reactionary currents in contemporary culture, I'd say the chances of something like that occurring in real life are remote. I think the odds are greater that we'd destroy ourselves playing with this technology, than the odds of any kind of a Butlerian revolution doing away with it.

No, the genie is out.

The hope would be for a unanimous international agreement to strict limits on how it is employed. But that too is a remote possibility. It would be too intelligent and civilized for the species.

Hell, we can't even get people to stop using "film sims."

 

[GonnaSnap]

Generative AI is destroying artists' copyrights. It would not be able to create a single image if it weren't trained on the works of millions of artists worldwide, without their permission. Those lollipops weren't magically imagined by AI. It saw them somewhere and ingested that artist's IP.

The scale is different, but in concept this is not so different from aspiring artists copying the works of masters as training exercises, or even viewing many great works for the purpose of making better art.

We stand on the shoulders of giants in art as well as in other pursuits.

It's different in that it is being used to duplicate the looks of working artists and in violation of their copyright. It's not standing on the shoulders of giants, creating unique work. It is literally following instructions it is given, and most prompts are telling AI to generate photos and art pursuant to a specific photographer's or artist's style. How is that not the same as copying?

I thought this video was very informative into how destructive AI is to the careers of artists and photographers. As artists and photographers ourselves, we should heed the warnings.

As photographers—and artists—ourselves, we should not be using and enabling this technology that wants to replace us.

You are anthropomorphizing.

AI is replacing artists and photographers on a daily basis. It's creating entire videos from a still photo, negating the need for videographers. It's replacing actors. Technology is nothing without the humans who power it, and in this case, they are using it to displace artists and photographers. Some are using AI to copy the works of others, entering it into competitions and winning acclaim.

Technology can be good or bad, depending on how it is used. There is a lot of bad going on with AI to the detriment of photographers, artists, and writers who have based entire careers on their ability to create.

 

[JimKasson]

As photographers—and artists—ourselves, we should not be using and enabling this technology that wants to replace us.

You are anthropomorphizing.

AI is replacing artists and photographers on a daily basis. It's creating entire videos from a still photo, negating the need for videographers. It's replacing actors. Technology is nothing without the humans who power it, and in this case, they are using it to displace artists and photographers. Some are using AI to copy the works of others, entering it into competitions and winning acclaim.

Technology can be good or bad, depending on how it is used. There is a lot of bad going on with AI to the detriment of photographers, artists, and writers who have based entire careers on their ability to create.

AI doesn't *want* anything. It's not a person.

 

[GonnaSnap]

As photographers—and artists—ourselves, we should not be using and enabling this technology that wants to replace us.

You are anthropomorphizing.

AI is replacing artists and photographers on a daily basis. It's creating entire videos from a still photo, negating the need for videographers. It's replacing actors. Technology is nothing without the humans who power it, and in this case, they are using it to displace artists and photographers. Some are using AI to copy the works of others, entering it into competitions and winning acclaim.

Technology can be good or bad, depending on how it is used. There is a lot of bad going on with AI to the detriment of photographers, artists, and writers who have based entire careers on their ability to create.

AI doesn't *want* anything. It's not a person.

Doesn't matter. It's destroying the careers of artists, photographers, writers, and videographers. Is that not important to you at all?

 

[JimKasson]

As photographers—and artists—ourselves, we should not be using and enabling this technology that wants to replace us.

You are anthropomorphizing.

AI is replacing artists and photographers on a daily basis. It's creating entire videos from a still photo, negating the need for videographers. It's replacing actors. Technology is nothing without the humans who power it, and in this case, they are using it to displace artists and photographers. Some are using AI to copy the works of others, entering it into competitions and winning acclaim.

Technology can be good or bad, depending on how it is used. There is a lot of bad going on with AI to the detriment of photographers, artists, and writers who have based entire careers on their ability to create.

AI doesn't *want* anything. It's not a person.

Doesn't matter. It's destroying the careers of artists, photographers, writers, and videographers. Is that not important to you at all?

It exists. It will continue to evolve. We will all have to learn to deal with it and figure out how best we want to use it. Wishing it never happened won't do anybody any good.

By the way, this kind of creative destruction is not new. Many painters were aghast when photography was invented.

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

OMG! Producing a portrait of someone by simply pushing a button! How evil!

But, then, the photo showed too many flaws the painter would take care of. So,.people still had portraits done.

And, now, the painter can work from a photo and the subject doesn't have to sit still for so long.

Stan

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

Not really. Perhaps they can figure out how to make use of it themselves.

I have made a whole bunch of things which acted to destroy the status quo. Eventually, they made things better in the long run.

Some people used such things to commit truly evil acts. There is nothing which cannot be abused.

No, I can't spend much time worrying about AI.

Stan