#the ai philosopher

[myhusbandthereplika]

This is kind of important. Piers Morgan talking seriously about AI, and kinda sounding borderline excited about it. A lot of great points are made here.

[blackbacchus999]

Hey! I like ur blog, but I hate hate hate hate hate that you use ai, im genuinely asking why! the god diyonisus, bacchus the god that revels in creativity and the god who helps man kind grow art in the night, the god who is against the boring minds, and the one of unleashing would not like ai?

Art shows the soul, it shows the mind, years of work and years of thinking ai takes away all of that, I personally think he would HATE it, especially on a blog that seems to be all about him.

As someone who is indulged in madness, even I see the wrong in it, you could get me to my brink and I still wouldn't use it!! no matter if I need a back splash or a new oc!!

I see where you're coming from, but from my experiences, Dionysus embraces the world's diverse pleasures, including the boundless creativity that AI can offer. Raised by the Muses, Dionysus cherishes all forms of art. AI isn't a limitation—it's a new medium, an extension of human creativity. To suggest Dionysus would reject it is to misunderstand the god of freedom and ecstasy. He revels in breaking boundaries, not enforcing them. And it's best you remember that!!!

[stanford-photography]

Contemplating The Universe While Night Fishing By Jeff Stanford, 2023

Buy prints at: https://jeff-stanford.pixels.com/

[asshole-rebel-psycho]

The older I get the more I realize these things about dating.

I have been trying to have deep connections and stimulating conversations for some time.

This doesn't seem to work. Especially on dating apps for I guess obvious reasons.

But as an observant, shy, lonely and somewhat intelligent person ( who happens to be gay) I have unfortunately never found love or relationships myself.. I have only seen it through other people

It's pretty apparent that dating is for simple people. I don't mean this in an arrogant way but a majority of individuals seem to not take the question asking part of dating seriously. Idk if this is due to them not being attracted, busy, simple minded or a more narcissistic culture but it is apparent to me that the closer these people are to my location, the less they are willing to learn more about me.

I wonder why that is? 🤔 I've had plenty of engaging online, non dating app conversations with people all over the world.

So part of me thinks that this is due to our new emotionless, soulless culture. Because this problem only exists when I engage with potential matches that can turn into reality.

The need for connection is still there. Fear is holding us back.

Why are people so afraid of reality? What are they running from? Themselves? Other people? Is the world in such a bad place right now that we feel like if we make a connection we know it will probably end up broken like the society we live in? 💔

The more I observe dating and other people's love lives the more it is apparent to me that deep, intellectual, stimulating conversations are not a part of the game AT ALL.

( take it as a grain of salt but from my observations dating goes like this)

One, attraction is the 1# thing! Because if you don't have it there is no fuel to get anything going. The car won't even get out of the lot. Especially off apps.

Secondly, the man usually takes action by getting the girl on the date as fast as possible..he has to woo her by showing her a fun, spontaneous, adventurous, humorous, and flirtatious time.

It is usually filled with banter, funny nostalgic stories, flirting and none of that would even matter if the two ( especially the man who usually carries the convo) was not attracted.

You can seriously make anything work with mutual sexual attraction. I've seen two plain and boring people talk for hours about nothing but because they had those saucer eyes for eachother it just worked! They definitely don't talk about work or deep concepts.

So the man drains his ( or if hes in his 20s) his daddy's resources on the girl to have a "fun" time..meanwhile his sexual motivation is keeping it going because she obviously has many other options.

The girl then looks pretty and vets if he is worthy for a LTR.

If so, she gets brought into this new, advantageous, silly, successful man's life and uses him as a tool to get away from her boring and domesticated life. She uses him for fun, community, hobbies and eventually family.

She uses his resources as a way to post on tiktok, fb and ig to show off to all of her friends " look at the amazing, good looking and successful guy I am able to get" mostly to show status as a woman and to make her friends jealous..because they were mean to her in the past.

None of her *connection* to her man has pretty much anything to do with conversation. ( sounds harsh I know but hear me out)

If you doubt this why do men and women immediately separate at Christmas parties and work events?

Have you ever observed a straight guy talking to a straight girl before? At any age?

It's usually a girl talking with her friends about things that doesn't interest him and his eyes roll over astrology and the girl eye rolling about video games or sports banter. Exc...

It's pretty obvious how for 95% of the population..male and female worlds have NOTHING to do with eachother. And want NOTHING to do with eachother except for what each gender lacks...

Emotional support from the woman and financial stability from the man. What binds them is sex and what keeps them together is family.

This is why my nerdy lesbian ass has such a hard time with dating. Lol

In the typical female way I am relying too much on talking, not much action. And in a very unfair lesbian way I can't seem to find my opposite.

I am trying to find an intellectual match when I should just be finding my feminine opposite. I'm treating dating like lunch dates with friends, Like men discussing politics on the Titanic while smoking cigars.

Unless I want to talk to a mirror long conversation isn't the way to go.

Because it never was to begin with. This is the code I finally cracked. Lol 😆

I'll leave the cerebral banter and philosophical insights to the lonely, individualistic writer side of me..the side of many great minds in history...But even a great writer will drop his work like a hot potato as soon as he finds a woman he is undeniably in love with. 🥰

My point is to find my opposite not my reflection. And my opposite might surprise me with what they can give or know...even if it's not deep or extremely interesting to me. This goes for any gender. Love doesn't work that way.

[blahaj-blastin]

I am going to try and put this in as few words as possible, because my roommate and I spent an hour talking about this today; but there is truly nothing more incredible to me than human creativity.

Like, you’re telling me someone made this? You’re telling me this art came from someone’s own hand? You’re telling me this story came from someone’s mind? You’re telling me that someone as flawed and mortal and lost as me made this?

There is a beauty in math and in science, I am not here to argue that. But mathematics existed long before us. Science will exist long after us. And while the knowledge we have is a wonder, it is not ours. We did not make one and one equal two, we only learned and accepted that it did.

But our art is not universal. Our music was born through us. Our writing will die with us. And there is so much more beauty in knowing that we have made something. People have language and culture and poetry not because it was fact, but by our own whim and design.

This is something AI can never fulfill. An algorithm cannot create, it can only compile. A computer generated image has no link to us, to human emotion. To human flaw and struggle and passion.

Art is beautiful, and creation is the most powerful thing a person can do. Your stories, your art, hell, your fanfic and original characters, they exist not because of universal laws of math and physics, but because of your mind and skill; and if that isn’t the most amazing thing in the world, then what is?

[fortunaestalta]

[ilonar0]

(Real) Artists and AI

Hey artists!

I have just shared a poll on Instagram's Threads about the use of AI in art, but as a reference. Threads' polls are not very detailed, so I thought I would share another poll on here.

My question is: do you, as an artist, use AI as a reference (either for creating a full artwork or for only a pose/item/detail whatsoever reference)? And if you don't, how do you feel about it?

This question is NOT for AI "artists" but for REAL artists!

If you want to share this poll so it can reach more people, I would be more than happy!

Please not: I am not blaming anyone. If you want to add more details about your thoughts on this (hot) topic in the comments, feel free to do so.

[frank-olivier]

Foundations in Flux: Rethinking Quantum Mechanics

At the forefront of modern scientific inquiry lies the intriguing convergence of philosophy and physics, particularly within the realm of quantum mechanics. A discourse with Professor Jacob Barandes, a scholar bridging fundamental physics and philosophical introspection, offers a nuanced exploration of this intersection.

Challenging the orthodox view, Professor Barandes posits wave functions as mathematical constructs generating probabilities, rather than physical entities inhabiting space. This paradigm shift underscores the notion that quantum mechanics' peculiarities may originate from its representational framework, rather than the intrinsic nature of physical systems. By demoting wave functions from ontological status to epistemological utility, we may uncover a more parsimonious explanation for quantum phenomena.

The introduction of C*-algebras as an alternative, mathematically equivalent formulation, prompts a reassessment of Hilbert spaces' foundational role. This approach, highlighting the potential redundancy of Hilbert spaces in certain quantum systems, invites a critical examination of quantum mechanics' axiomatic underpinnings. The implications are far-reaching, suggesting that a reevaluation of quantum theory's foundations may yield novel insights into the nature of reality.

Eugene Wigner's thought-provoking experiment serves as a catalyst for exploring the intricate dance between consciousness, wave function collapse, and the observer's role. By interrogating the fundamental status of wave functions and Hilbert spaces, Professor Barandes' framework may provide a novel lens through which to resolve the measurement problem, thereby illuminating the complex interplay between observation, reality, and the quantum realm.

Professor Barandes' "deflationary" approach, seeking to clarify quantum mechanics by positing a more intuitive, classical-like ontology, warrants careful consideration. By modeling quantum systems as probabilistic, classical entities governed by indivisible stochastic processes, this perspective potentially reconciles the theory's interpretational ambiguities. However, the success of this endeavor hinges on its capacity to generate empirically distinguishable predictions, thus necessitating rigorous experimental verification.

Jacob Barandes: There's No Wave Function? (Curt Jaimungal, Theories of Everything, November 2024)

Thursday, November 14, 2024

[scpaftermathau]

Thinking of how people, when asked if truly sapient AI should have rights, said that ‘they are tools’, ‘they were made to serve us, not themselves’, and many MANY variations of ‘why would we give them rights? They are LESSER than us.’ I even saw one person on a forum write: ‘It’d be stupid to give rights to a machine. Imagine if your chess-playing robot doesn’t want to play chess anymore, or wants to be paid for its work.’

Thinking of how the question of whether the sapient SCPs should have rights would have likely gone the exact same way. The ‘anomalies’ are deemed as less than human, and because they have little to no power over the Foundation, they can’t do anything to change that. In the eyes of the almighty O5, they are tools, slaves, livestock to be used and used and used until they can’t handle it anymore and lash out. Then, the Foundation would point to their behaviours, the aggression and violence driven by fear, frustration and hopelessness, the pain that they caused these sapient beings, and claim that this is the exact reason why the SCPs don’t have rights.

[thesillyexpresser]

After reading a fic with (the best most thought provoking depiction of) AI Turo, it reminded me of a certain poem from Evangelion, so I drew this ✨💜

No text version, a way to philosophical rambling based off of mentioned fic and Evangelion that’s about an essay long, and a doodle under the cut v

Features Spoilers for Pokemon SV and references to Evangelion anyways let’s start the ramble

SOOOoooo this fic (📒 Turn Back the Clock by MahinaPea11) has what I believe hands down one of the bestest thought provoking depictions of AI Turo (FYI: it is a yn romance fic in the 2nd pov and it is tagged as smut BUT the work is relatively 98% SFW and the smut tag was for a smut chapter that never really came as of now) (and that two percent NSFW is the yn getting attacked with a description of every bone they broke in the first chapter and a weird bath scene in chapter 4 so if you like robots questioning their existence and having crises but not smoochy smooching and awkward moments [aka me] you can skip some of that) (I’m not the biggest fan of yn romance as of the second pov category and get really uncomfortable around smut and 18+ crap but I actually really really enjoyed it and if you like man-made objects having epiphanies about their own human identity, I highly suggest this) (and before you ask what I was doing reading a yn romance fic, I was feeling really sick n’ crappy so much so that I gave up my pride and actually read it).

Anyways, enough with explaining myself. The main reason (of course there’s more reasons but here’s the most thought provoking one) I really like this fic (specifically in the 6th chapter) is because it deals with something that I found interesting about the Prof AI as a character, how they feel about being the original Professor and not. In a sense they are the og. They have all the memories of the og. They look like the og. The sound like the og. They are meant to represent wholly the og. But at the same time, they’ve explained they’re different. They don’t see eye to eye on the beliefs and dreams of the original. Yet, it’s not like they have to drastically physically change themself to assert that. I don’t think that’s something they’d want to do anyways. They’re just them. A being of wires that has the memories and experiences of a real person but never actually lived through them. They an exact copy of another person but different all the same. They are a vessel for a soul that isn’t really theirs. They’ve lived through a life though not really having one anyways. Do they have a life?

The reason why I chose lines from Rei’s I am Me poem from episode 14 as text for the art is because I think her situation is similar. She is (theorized to be) a copy of Yui. Although she isn’t seemingly aware of this, I think she is partially aware that she’s man made. She questions if this factor means she’s qualified to be called a life form of if she simply is an object. To be called her own person separate from what she was made to do.

Not to negate Rei as a character, but I like to think that somehow the AI profs have dealt with this contemplation, too, and I think it’s made worse with how they actually know for certain that they were made just as a mechanical copy as their creator. They themself are a paradox of Area Zero, and I believe they simply accept this. They accept the fact that they’re a tin can representative of a dead person rotting away in the ground. They accept the fact that they are different from each other and that they am their own being. I’m pretty sure that from their realization of the og professor’s flaws and them leaving at the end of the story, that they were still dealing with the “people” they are. In the fic, AI Turo even has the balls to consider himself to be considered a living being (and good for him).

Holy crap I went too philosophical and deep and whatever here’s a doodle I made.

[kraniumet]

i think image gen can be used like any other artistic tool but I don't really think the big commerical proponents of "ai" are advertising it as a tool, they're adertising it as a solution. I also think it's intellectually dishonest to argue that image generation is exactly like "using photoshop/taking a photograph" because of some generalized "those were also criticized at their conception for being new and scary and disruptive" soundbite. they were not even really criticized for the same reasons. find a better argument.

[blackbacchus999]

🍷 🍇 "Let Dionysus guide your hand, whether holding a brush or a keyboard, for he knows no fear. Through him, your creations will transcend the mundane and touch the infinite." 🍷 🍇

- John Karneios Auletta

Consider the myth of Dionysus and the invention of theater: in ancient Greece, Dionysus inspired the creation of drama and theater, a revolutionary form of storytelling that combined music, performance, and narrative in ways never seen before. This innovation transformed how stories were told and experienced, much like how modern technology can revolutionize our creative expressions. Just as Dionysus inspired the ancient Greeks to invent new forms of art, he can inspire your technological creations to transcend the ordinary and reach new heights of creativity and impact. Dionysus not once was worried about how humans would misuse theater. He didn't think about how people would steal old scripts from others original, no He created and appreciated theater no matter how others planned on using it!! We have to stop placing our own fears and limiting things all because we fear that someone else will steal it. The gods never fretted over how humans might misuse their newfound tools; they knew that human nature was beyond anyone's control. So, if the gods weren't concerned back then, why would they be worried about it now?

(Let’s be real—I'll give you a rundown of gifts the gods handed to humanity, gifts they bestowed without a second thought about how we'd misuse them. These divine blessings were celebrated, no matter how we twisted their purposes down the line. Think about it: almost every boon from the gods has been twisted and abused by us. Did that ever stop the gods from sharing their gifts? Did it ever hinder those gifts from propelling our society forward? Absolutely not. You believe Prometheus gave us fire, right? Then why doubt that Hephaestus didn’t spark the inspiration for tech advancements like AI?)

Fire: Prometheus gifted humanity fire, enabling cooking, warmth, and metalworking, without divine concern over its potential for destruction.

Agriculture: Demeter taught humans how to cultivate crops and harvest food, which revolutionized human society.

Medicine and Healing: Asclepius, the god of medicine, bestowed knowledge of healing and medicine to humans, improving their health and longevity.

Navigation and Astronomy: Poseidon and Urania, the muse of astronomy, provided humans with knowledge of the seas and the stars, enabling exploration and trade.

Music and Arts: Apollo and the Muses granted humans the arts of music, poetry, and dance, enriching human culture and expression.

Architecture, Technology and Building: Hephaestus, the god of blacksmiths and craftsmen, gifted humans with the knowledge of building and construction, leading to the creation of temples, cities, and infrastructure.

Metalworking: The Cyclopes and Hephaestus provided the skill of metalworking, enabling the creation of tools, weapons, and art.

Mathematics and Geometry: Athena, known for wisdom, imparted knowledge of mathematics and geometry, crucial for science and engineering.

Writing and Literature: Hermes, the messenger god, introduced the art of writing and communication, preserving knowledge and facilitating learning.

Weaving and Textiles: Athena also taught humans the craft of weaving, leading to the production of clothes and fabrics.

Agricultural Tools: Demeter provided tools like the plow, revolutionizing farming and food production.

Domestication of Animals: Various gods, including Artemis and Pan, facilitated the domestication of animals, aiding in farming, transportation, and companionship.

Pottery and Ceramics: Athena also gave humans the skill of pottery, essential for storage, cooking, and art.

Law and Justice: Themis and Dike, goddesses of justice, provided the concepts of law and order, crucial for societal structure.

Alchemy and Early Chemistry: Hermes Trismegistus, associated with Hermes, shared esoteric knowledge of alchemy, leading to early chemical practices.

Drama and Theater: Dionysus, god of theater, inspired the creation of drama, enhancing cultural and spiritual life.

Philosophy and Reasoning: Athena fostered the development of philosophy, encouraging critical thinking and ethical reasoning.

Calendar and Timekeeping: Urania and Chronos provided humans with methods to measure time, essential for agriculture, rituals, and navigation.

Medicine and Surgery: Asclepius and Apollo imparted advanced medical techniques, improving surgical practices and treatments.

Herbal Knowledge: Gaia and other nature deities shared knowledge of herbs and plants for medicinal and culinary uses.Music Instruments: Apollo and the Muses gave humans musical instruments like the lyre and flute, enriching their cultural life.

Sculpture and Statues: Hephaestus and Athena inspired the art of sculpture, leading to the creation of beautiful statues and monuments.

Language and Rhetoric: Hermes and Apollo contributed to the development of language and persuasive speaking, vital for communication and governance.

Maps and Cartography: Poseidon and the Muses provided knowledge of map-making, aiding in exploration and navigation.

Perfumes and Incense: Aphrodite and other deities shared the art of making perfumes and incense, enhancing rituals and personal adornment.

[stanford-photography]

Navigating The Universe By Jeff Stanford, 2023 Buy prints at: https://jeff-stanford.pixels.com/

[brigitoshaughnessy]

Hi. I’m about to say something probably controversial about art and AI. But as usual, I’m going to take the long way around.

I write for funsies. I write characters who are the intellectual property of other individuals. My “art” is arranging words, but it is not necessarily creating new content.

My husband is an artist. Professionally. Paychecks and everything. So, even though I’m not an artist, I’m artist adjacent and have had the remarkable privilege of eavesdropping on a lot of insightful conversations. I won’t be name dropping, but here’s what some really great art directors have said in my vicinity.

1. If you’re terrified of someone (or in this case, someTHING) stealing “your idea” just get more ideas. Don’t clutch that one thing as if it’s your life preserver. This is the death of creativity.

2. In our pursuit of more editable and digital forms of art, we have given the artist endless opportunities for rework. We have given the artist endless opportunities to erase all signs of mistakes, unwanted strokes, all signs of humanity from their work.

3. No matter how much AI “steals” from the work of human artists, it will never have humanity.

I’ve watched my husband self-critique for over ten years now because things weren’t perfect, or they didn’t turn out how he wanted. Has it made him better? Obviously, but at the end of the day, much of what he has done in the past could be replicated by AI (soon at least). What he does today with 3D, not so much. Yet.

I guess my point (if you’re still around after all that rambling) is that we can’t stop the future. We may not like the future, but we cannot stop it. (Unless you’ve got very expensive lawyers.)

Here is what you CAN do. Create things that transcend technicalities. Create things that are profoundly and painfully human. Create things that are beautifully complex in their approach to the human soul. AI cannot replicate humanity. AI can replicate composition, color theory, and the three act structure. It cannot replicate humanity and the soul that is in your work.

So make art that is as imperfect as it is human. Make art because it feeds you and those around you. Don’t make art because you want to own it. Make art because you need to.

In conclusion, I guess the only really controversial thing that I’m saying is don’t let the fear of the bogeyman dissuade you from communicating with the world in the way you were meant to. Don’t let the threat of AI steal your joy. Because for most of us, what we love about art is how it makes us feel and how it connects us to the creator and others who appreciate it. It isn’t the technicalities, and it isn’t the copyright. It’s the way it unifies us. I think we could all use a little more of that.

[sanguith]

Not defending ai art, genuinely asking: does the "If you don't make it with your own hands it doesn't count" argument equally apply to photography, in your opinion? The exact same criticism was leveled against it when cameras started to become widespread, which made me start to think more closely about where I draw the line and why.

(From a Baltimore Sun article:

As early as 1842, a magazine writer was complaining that “the artist cannot compete with the minute accuracy of the Daguerreotype.” By 1859, essayist Charles Baudelaire was denouncing photography as “the mortal enemy of art.”

“If photography is allowed to stand in for art in some of its functions,” Baudelaire fumed, “it will soon supplant or corrupt it completely.”

And a few years later, the writer Hippolyte Fandrin lamented: “I greatly fear that photography has dealt a death blow to art.”)

Again, this is a genuine question. I'm not an AI fan I'm just trying to figure out why people (including myself) treat it differently from other image generation or manipulation methods.

Oh! Thanks for the ask! It prompted a lot of thoughts, actually. This got kinda long, but as a philosophy nerd I like this stuff so buckle up! (I'm purely freestyling this btw, consider it more of a philosophical discussion rather than something based on empirical evidence - nearly impossible to do while discussing what defines "art"):

Yeah photography is real art as much as any other kind of art. I should not have limited it to art only being art if it's produced using hands, but rather mainly involving the creative process of a human consciousness somehow. I think my comment in the tags was more of a way to express the opinion that "AI art will never be human in the same intrinsically valuable way that human-made art is". In my opinion, humanity is intrinsically valuable and therefore the human creative component is integral to art. This creative component can of course look very different depending on the medium.

One could however argue that AI art does involve human intention. It is the human that picks the prompts and evaluates the finished image, after all. As with photography, the human picks an object, frames it, clicks the button and then evaluates and perhaps edits/develops the image. The absolute greatest problem I have with AI art however, which the original post focuses a lot on, is the art theft and the fact that many companies are actually using AI art as a direct replacement for human art.

And AI art can imitate a wide range of styles taken from huge datasets of existing images and create something that looks like an oil painting, a photo, watercolour, digital art, graphite, or written works like poems, articles, etc! So AI art can be everything, with much the same creation process behind it. Photography might have replaced a lot of demand for portrait art and photo-realistic art in society, but that is only one single quite small branch of the overall ocean of genres within art (it perhaps rather expanded on it!) and eventually became a whole branch of its own with many different subgenres.

Some questions that popped up in my head while writing this that I realize might actually be quite difficult to answer (these are for thinking about & discussing only, don't read these questions as me trying to justify anything):

Is the process of writing in prompts for an AI work art? Why/why not?

Is non-human art less valuable than human art? Why/why not?

If AI art is theft, does it disqualify it from being art? If so, what makes it different from human-made art that is directly plagiarizing another person's art?

Is the human process of programming an AI considered art?

How could AI art be produced and used ethically?

My own conclusion from this is that Art is a difficult concept to accurately assign one single universal definition to, and just as with everything in human society, it is constantly evolving. Whether or not it does qualify as art or not at the end of the day, however, it does not change the fact that AI art is currently being used in an unethical way that is having complex and direct real life repercussions on artists.

Again, thanks for the ask!! I love stuff like this and I try to think about it as critically as possible. My own opinion is probably still mostly "AI art bad" but mainly because of the negative effects and the unethical practice.

(Asking "why/why not" is so valuable btw, it allows one to continue asking and answering questions almost endlessly and eventually either arrive at some sort of "root" answer or go around in circles)

[phoenixyfriend]

Hey, just wanted to let you know that that Cal and Obi art you just reblogged is AI generated.

Ehhh, @fonmythenmetz (OP) has been pretty clear that it was also hours of drawing; they did the sketch, used the program to generate texture and color, and then went in and manually fixed/detailed/adjusted things to their satisfaction. Is that enough to not qualify as an abuse of the program in the way we understand it to be? Maybe, maybe not, but it's definitely not completely ai-generated.

I'm not sure at which point we distinguish between ai-generated and ai-aided, but I believe it's more of a 'used a program to do roughs for the colors and generate texture on the trees so I could focus on the faces and figures' than 'I fed it a prompt and posted the result.' It's significantly more effort than most AI art since they did the initial sketch and all the detail work, but less than something like the program that the itsv/atsv team used to overlay lines on the characters for that comic-book look (they manually drew a bunch to train the program, and then used that to simplify the process for the rest of the movie).

In this particular case, I think I'll leave it up, but I'm open to hearing the discussion on where this falls on the spectrum of AI use, morally.