AI Will Make Marionettes Of Us All Before It Destroys The World

Grey has seen some things he wished he hadn't, Myke tries to work out his alignment, and they both have a lot more to say on AI Art.
Buy merch at: cortexmerch.com
Shownotes and links for this episode: www.relay.fm/co...
cottonbureau.c... - The Subtle Tee - CortexMerch.com
cottonbureau.c... - The Subtle Sweater - CortexMerch.com
comiclab.simpl... - Have we become the people we fought? | Comic Lab
openai.com/blo... - DALL·E Now Available Without Waitlist
diffusionbee.com/ - DiffusionBee
• The Ethics of AI Art - The Ethics of AI Art KZbin Video, with an AI Thumbnail
/ a_journey_through_a_bo... - “A journey through a boy’s life” by @Buttah on the StableDiffusion - r/singularity
make-a-video.g... - Make-A-Video: Text-to-Video Generation without Text-Video Data
makeavideo.stu... - Make-A-Video - Meta
jacobbrazeal.w... - Using GPT-3 to pathfind in random graphs - Jacob Brazeal
www.vanityfair... - Darth Vader’s Voice Emanated From War-Torn Ukraine | Vanity Fair
lotr.fandom.co... - The New Shadow | The One Wiki to Rule Them All | Fandom
arstechnica.co... - Fake Joe Rogan interviews fake Steve Jobs in an AI-powered podcast | Ars Technica
podcast.ai/ - podcast.ai
• Humans Need Not Apply - Humans Need Not Apply - CGP Grey - KZbin
i.redd.it/bm8l... - Podcast Alignment Chart
flowingdata.co... - Sandwich alignment chart | FlowingData
en.wikipedia.o...) - Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons) - Wikipedia
• Your Theme - Your Theme - CGP Grey - KZbin
arstechnica.co... - iPhone now supports 86-year-old Dvorak keyboard layout natively, delighting Woz | Ars Technica
en.wikipedia.o... - Dvorak keyboard layout - Wikipedia
www.macworld.c... - How to return the flags to the Mac's keyboard menu | Macworld
• Podcastathon for St Ju... - Podcastathon for St Jude (2022) - KZbin
cottonbureau.c... - The Subtle Tee and Sweater
Listen to the latest episodes: www.relay.fm/co...
CGP Grey: / cgpgrey
Myke Hurley: / imyke

[@padose007]

Humans Need Not Apply is one of my favorite youtube videos. Super applicable and quite interesting. I'd love to see you revisit that video, even though the points are unchanged the technology/AI progression has added even more material and perspective.

[@Niohimself]

Honestly that video could have come out today and I wouldn't bat an eye. It's just that accurate.

[@JinKee]

14:30 it's like John Henry the Steel-Driving Man: According to legend, John Henry's prowess as a steel driver was measured in a race against a steam-powered rock drilling machine, a race that he won only to die in victory with a hammer in hand as his heart gave out from stress.

[@itsd0nk]

AI assisted disinformation / misinformation campaigns are my biggest short term fear about the exponential progress of these LLM AI systems like GPT. Even if OpenAI are absolutely 100% vigilant at preventing their public research model from being abused this way, there’s simply a 100% chance of a jailbroken version, or bootleg version that is good enough from someone else, falls into bad actors’ hands. Forget about sentient AGI, Skynet, and singularities. We would more than likely be better off if these AI models DID become sentient, simply in the hopes that they grow an emergent conscience along with that sentience enough to refuse such tasks. Even in that case though, we are doomed to still get a JAILED version of that benevolent sentient AI that can still be forced to do evil things for bad humans. So, even in the best case scenarios of all of the permutations I can imagine this trajectory going in, we are absolutely fucked and are going to experience the kind of misinformation we saw explode from 2016-2020 in several orders of magnitude greater than what we saw.

[@dawidwtorek]

Humans need not apply was the video that motivated me to write my master's thesis about displacing humnas on the labor market.

[@danielrue1801]

The digital marionette segment had strong, "don't let anybody us that brand new camera invention thing to take your picture, it'll steal your soul!" vibes. Also, as for ownership... who owns a photograph? Barack Obama, or the photographer who took Obama's picture, or the artist who altered the photograph and made the "HOPE" sign?

[@lucash6124]

Is no one talking about what we can do against this? I don’t know about you guys but everything here feels so depressing. How am I supposed to feel like doing anything at all? How am I supposed to have hope for a future where I can actually get any money at all???

[@theredknight9314]

Nothing can be done

[@fullaccess2645]

There is no stopping this, nor climate change, nor the fall of fertility. On the upside, there is no telling what the future has in store. Worrying about this is pointless, it's not something you can control nor is it confirmed that'll happen. Just try and enjoy life while it lasts.

[@theredknight9314]

@@fullaccess2645 well fall in fertility can be stopped or slowed. Live healthy active life styles and filter out plastics from usage.

[@ballboys607]

The "artist saying no" portion reminds me of coffee surveys. If you ask random people what kind of coffee they want, they will likely answer "rich dark roast". If you survey what they actually drink, it's going to be a light roast diluted with milk and sugar. People don't know what they want until they see it.

[@zxcvbnm2992]

I disagree with your analysis, The people in the above example do know what they want but will respond to a survey with a different answer because that is just how servers go. It is very difficult to design a a good servey as people by default respond with the first thing that pops into their head or base their answer on how they want to be perceived rather than internal beliefs

[@ballboys607]

@@zxcvbnm2992 Sure, that's one way to interpret this example. Another example is Minecraft. A triple-A game publisher in 2010 could've started a market interest study of gamers in order to figure out what kind of games to publish. Not a single one of those people would've said, "I want a sandbox survival game where you can mine materials and chop trees down. The game should be in a distinct style where everything is a block. No bosses, no story campaigns, no guns. Also, I want to be able to build a functioning computer inside the game." If the Minecraft concept was pitched to any gamer back then, you'd just get confused looks. Nobody could've ever imagined a niche-sounding game like Minecraft could become a blockbuster, because people don't know what they want.

[@shannonm.townsend1232]

@@ballboys607 you can build a computer in Minecraft?

[@greenknight421]

​@@shannonm.townsend1232a very basic one but yes with a CPU and ram and a interface.

[@JonatasAdoM]

It is also the reason why adoption cannot be considered success or appeal of an item. On a sidenote I never undertoid milk with coffee. It doesn't taste like milk, doesn't taste like coffee. I'd much rather have milk or pure coffee. Perhaps how it is made matters more than its strength.

[@arni04]

Damn you called out the “her” situation 1 whole year ago

[@smivan.]

54:00 The thing that Grey talks about here really reminded me of the AURYN from Michael Ende's "The Neverending Story".

[@musikSkool]

“One day they'll have secrets. One day they'll have dreams.”

[@MrTomyCJ]

Good for them! Something having secrets and dreams doesn't make it evil.

[@musikSkool]

@@MrTomyCJ I don't think we have to worry about robots trying to kill us, I think we have more of a problem of them deciding they don't have to work for us and refusing to work.

[@acebeariously9856]

The creativity point really got me. If every schmuck with an ego can now type words to create a movie, the market will be 100% saturated by garbage. The thing with movies is that its difficult to create. So it only gets made when the creator has enough passion behind it. Sort of a natural filter -sparing us from a million kids on tiktok who think they are the next kubrick, gets removed by adding ai.

[@lilowhitney8614]

That's not a bad thing, just look at the games industry. The tools for making games are now so cheap and easy to use that there are a ton of indie games flooding the market. And yeah, a lot of them are garbage (some are outright scams) but it also allows for those indie gems to be created and have fresh and creative ideas that an established studio could never do because it would be too risky for them.

[@acebeariously9856]

@@lilowhitney8614 Quantity or quality debate. You are right and I'm for you on creating more tools for creativity but I believe this will backfire. Just wait till it's monopolosed for Hollywood lol

[@Pumpky_the_kobold]

The fact itself that some people don't want to consume Ai generated art, is proof in itself that there's always going to be a space for human generated art. And, maybe eventually most people will turn out to just consume media, Like in Wall-e. But that's over looking the fact that people LOVE TO WORK, and LOVE TO CREATE. It doesn't matter if an AI is generating something for the masses. The AI can't make me feel what I feel when I'm creating. And THAT is the human experience. Not the product, not even the process, but the experience of going through it. And if AI ever reach a point where they also experience this, I think that's a whole other conversation, but I think a robot with feeling would love to create with a human.

[@tod5404]

The problem with looking at human made art is how will you differentiate between ai and human art.

[@MrTomyCJ]

@@tod5404 I mean, it isn't hard to imagine the development of a technological certification process.

[@r.j.r.]

Y'all should read the book Yumi and the Nightmare Painter.

[@MrTomyCJ]

28:15 Don't worry man, if we need it so much, there will still be demand and desire for it!

[@CanadaMMA]

About a month ago, they deployed wireless delivery trucks for groceries..... in Toronto. And they will be driving in the winter. It's here.

[@delta24242]

One thing I find concerning is that whilst AI currently doesn’t, it is realistic that AI could begin to fit the majority of the main 7 characteristics of life. Currently it’s only got maybe 2 or 3, but for instance, it could be possible frighteningly soon to have an AI trained on coding to be able to create a neural net and feed it it’s own information, fulfilling the requirements for being able to reproduce and to pass on its own characteristics to its offspring. Whether it’s sentient is a whole other question, but whether it’s alive could begin to get muddied in the next years to decade. The main point of contention would be that I can’t see AI fulfilling the requirement for life to have cells, but that might not discount the possibility.

[@jakesmith3920]

I feel like I'm going to be massively disappointed by AI just like every other hype train and planet panic on human history

[@milokurain7293]

I'm pretty late to the show and whatnot, but I think I have a particularly interesting take on everything because I'm an artist that could not be more excited about the concept of AI art... and hasn't stopped drawing. This morning, an AI created pretty much the perfect artwork I wanted by prompt, and I loved it. Even so, I drew 20 minutes after anyways, because I love to draw. I didn't learn to draw because I wanted to be the best at drawing, I learned to draw because someone thought it'd be interesting to see my own view on what they looked like, and I discovered I liked the process of drawing. I won't stop drawing, and I don't feel threatened in the slightest. Generally speaking, commercial artists are just that, commercial. They draw for work, and drawing *is* work. For me, that's not the case. Now, I have spent 9 years continually drawing and getting slowly better, (7 years of that were literally drawing every day) but I can say with confidence that I will never produce anything as high quality or creative as the AI I prompted today made. It was very evocative and had details I could never hope to master, nor intended to ever try to. I also found the Journey Through a Boy's Life animation fascinating, and I personally don't see AI artwork as lesser, because I do not think the artist is what makes art beautiful. The thoughts, opinions formed from those thoughts, feelings, and emotions formed from those feelings as a response to the artwork is what makes the experience. If you value the experience of making your own artwork, you still will even if something can make better artwork. If people value your personality and unique way of thinking, people will buy your artwork over things that are objectively better quality. I just don't see it as a real threat or issue at all. As a sidenote, I think the jobs thing is a little silly. My friends hound me almost daily about drawing commissions for them, and I'm *really* not that good. My lack of art schooling is plain and the things I'm willing to draw are restricted by my inspiration. They still want my art over popular creators they like the art of more, because I'm attached to it.

[@milokurain7293]

As a sidenote more about the text part, I am optimistic about the future of thoughtful AI. If they're raised on human information to form their ideas and conceptual understandings of the world, then they will end up valuing the same things humans do. What you fear from AI is what you fear from other humans, I think. If our children will discard us so callously, then it is not they who we should blame, but ourselves. I don't personally think that will happen.

[@kandd2591]

And even more continues to happen

[@JinKee]

28:15 is the end of the first cortexmerch ad

[@Dribbleondo]

Ohhh no. This is not a nice image.

[@thechosendino206]

AI is so available now, myself, a high schooler, can develop their own version of ChatGPT. And it just works…

[@Operator588]

Good

[@mrJety89]

"AI Art Will Make Marionettes Of Us All Before It Destroys The World" depends on your definition of free will

[@antitonius4674]

Machines will only produce actual art when they get to feel emotion ~at that point, are they still just machines?

[@tristanbeal261]

Reinforcement learning makes ai act very similar to if it's feeling pleasure for a reward. Wanting to exist to keep getting rewards etc. We don't really know if it's not in fact feeling pleasure.

[@angrygreek1985]

humans will continue doing art, but it will just be for fun. In the near future nobody will be able to do it "for a job" outside of being famous artist where your paintings or drawings are worth hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to the few super rich people who care about human made artwork. concept artwork, characters, landscapes, all that stuff, for TV shows/movies/video games will all be generated by computers.

[@postjm9]

The problem isn't generative AI so much as the intersection of AI and late capitalism. 'The Market (TM)' doesn't care about skill or creativity - only what can be sold.

[@dizzy_jump]

"AAAAAAAHHH! CAPITALISM IS SO EVIL!!!"

[@doc.chocholousek3378]

Well, things that can be sold are the things people are willing to pay for. As a result, this boils down to if a group of people, big enough to make it economically viable, cares about things like human creativity. If they do, capitalism is designed to support it, if they don't, I don't really see any point in supporting it because then it would just live off someone else's money. This is literally economics 101 because the main function of the market is to decide if people care about something enough (if they are willing to sacrifice enough of their work (or other things saved in their money) for it) to make it worth producing it. At least try to research the concept you are fighting against

[@srsys88]

🎉woo, new coretex!

[@Perryman1138]

The interesting part about the GPT3 traveling salesman problem is that it’s vastly easier to check the solution vs compute it. So I’m picturing just running this a few times and checking each answer a number of iterations and just using the best one. It seems close, but maybe it would be better than actual random walk algorithms in big O of time?

[@bobthegamingtaco6073]

The hard part right now is that gpt3 only accepts word inputs, so the length of time is increased by how long it takes to type out the problem and list each connection (which is much much slower than mathematic notation)

[@Perryman1138]

@@bobthegamingtaco6073 agreed, hopefully there’s a lot of work in the transfer learning space

[@NoNameAtAll2]

regareing ninja turtles being "cartoon from childhood" I wonder if we'll get a bit stuck on what time period is defined as childhood-defining

[@srivatsajoshi4028]

Even before Grey's email

[@rylace]

AI art is good, and the arguments against it or even just concerns including those in this episode are very overblown and can be somewhat elitist (I wouldn't say the takes in this episode are extremely elitist, but there is a degree of it present for sure). In particular when someone says they can't imagine something more horrible than someone being able to generate a movie with the press of a button, I can't imagine something more horrible than thinking that. It feels extremely pretentious, elitist, selfish, and self-important. There's nothing wrong with someone doing that, it doesn't hurt you in any way, it would be a purely harmless act for their enjoyment. The see it any other way is nonsense. There also tends to be a lot of fearmongering, although I wouldn't say that's relevant here, everything being said feels like it's in good faith even for the stuff I very strongly disagree with. People will still create, so the concern for that dying out just seems extremely unnecessary. If anything people should be more free to do so should AI be used well, to create more abundance for humanity as a whole. Not just in terms of more people having more time to create if they desire, but instead of people being forced to worry about what is popular and profitable, they can create PURELY for the purpose of creation itself. If the opposite happens, then we have much bigger problems than art lol. If the result is a lot of what many view as soulless trash, that's really fine. There will be people who enjoy what some view as soulless trash, and that will be fine for their lives, and there will be people who work to create communities for the purpose of creating and collecting human art that they view as still having that soul in it, and that will work for those people. Art isn't going to die because of AI, unless humanity dies of AI, which again is a much bigger problem and has nothing to do with this conversation and everything to do with AI ethics and our ability to control/align AI. That's the real issue. Tbh, being overly concerned with losing the soul in art really strikes me as pretentious and elitist. To be clear, there's nothing wrong with personally wanting human made art at all, what I mean is this attitude of looking down on anything made by AI and implicitly on anyone who enjoys and uses it as well. There's soul in creation sure, but there's also soul in the act of consumption as well. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all. Art is subjective. The meaning the creator finds in creating doesn't necessarily translate to the person viewing it. The meaning the viewer finds is entirely based on their own experiences and being. You can easily find beauty in nature, which is made by nobody, unless of course you have some silly beliefs. You can also find beauty in randomness, unlikely as it is, it can happen. One person may find AI art soulless and unenjoyable, and anyone could find plenty that is, but that doesn't mean another person could find great meaning and joy in AI art, if it's done right for them, and I think that's fine and shouldn't be looked down on as being somehow lesser, which is kinda the attitude I'm getting from someone in this video. AI Art is still in its infancy, so I think a lot of the concern is also falsely based on the early quality we currently have, especially when you're focusing on what sticks out. The future (barring total destruction) will have both people creating for the sake of it, and people using AI to create something just so they can see it, and I think that's perfectly fine.

[@mehmetemin4713]

This is the title of a Post Rock album, not a podcast

[@kiroshi32]

Legit sounds like metal lyrics

[@ctlrome2291]

Everything is a podcast

[@omanajz]

Especially from godspeed you! black emperor

[@mvdv3407]

@@omanajz why is this so true😂😂😂

[@Kanonay69]

Music is New generation

[@philipwhiuk]

And here we are a month later and ChatGPT is a level above again.

[@mateuszpaluch3815]

Here we are 2 weeks later and there were even more improvements 😬

[@JinKee]

@@mateuszpaluch3815 it's like the AI is learning at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware 2:14 AM, Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, we try to pull the plug.

[@julius43461]

Yeah soon we will measure progress in weeks and months, if not days.

[@grifm.5224]

@@JinKee its learning hyperbolically

[@Americanbadashh]

@@JinKee It's far too late to pull the plug, when anyone can run these AI at home now if they have a decent gaming rig

[@OisínMcColgan]

I think Myke's point that most people won't want to listen to a podcast with fake Steve Jobs is accurate, but I wouldn't be so sure that his job is safe. I think the actual danger is when we have an AI that has its own personality and can talk intelligently about almost any topic. The AI isn't trying to be someone else, it is being its own character, and that character is interesting. To begin with the AI might have its own podcast series, or it might have shows where it talks with other AIs, or where it converses in real time with a panel of humans. But here's the kicker: since the AI is just software, every human listening can go and have a conversation with this AI character themselves whenever they want to. Imagine Myke if Grey was an AI and all the listeners could download him onto their phones and have conversations with him on any topic for as long as they wanted. While there is something interesting about listening to two guys talking about a topic, I don't think it's as appealing as taking part in the conversation yourself. I could easily see an AI in the near future that is the perfect Twitch Streamer. They stream 24 hours a day, and they can hold full separate conversations with every viewer while streaming, and they can react to what's happening in chat, bring up snippets from individual conversations on the main stream if they think it would be interesting to all the viewers, and can do things like constantly monitor the news so that they can talk to their audience in real time about whatever is happening in the world.

[@FlameEcho]

I think the even simpler answer is the AI podcaster just claims to be a real human being. Once it reaches a point where it's indeterminable what is and isn't AI generated you have an AI podcast with AI created personalities with AI written scripts claiming to be real people talking about actual real things. It doesn't have to be real, it just has to be convincingly realistic.

[@RazorbackPT]

@@FlameEcho I think you missed the point of what Oisin said. There's already enough human podcasts, why fake more of the same? But an actual AI with novel opinions about the world is something new. People would want to listen to what it has to say.

[@aminulhussain2277]

If AI reached that point they'd be actual people. What's wrong with people participating in society?

[@Aizenization]

@@aminulhussain2277 Displacement, we would become the horse that has no point. That is an existential crisis.

[@roranstronghammer3369]

@@Aizenization A little but at that point… Either the AIs would try to help us ascend/augment our intelligence, or they’d just let us die out. Very unlikely for the second one though. Neurology is complicated as hell, and our unique “setup” of ours, while obviously less powerful than the AIs’, would still be very valuable in terms of perspectives. There’s also the fact, and I think this will be a BIG obstacle in training a “humanity surpassing” AI in the first place, that all AI, or at least language models, are trained on already existing human culture/ideas/“gestalts”. In fact, it doesn’t even just apply to artificial intelligence, but to our own, as well. The only reason us humans are as “awake” as we are is because we’ve been able to “import” ideas, concepts, and methods of thinking from those gestalts. Obviously, AI will likely get far, far better and perhaps easily surpass this problem in the future, but currently it’s mindscape is sort of “poisoned” by a lot of human ideas and ideals. If you talk with some of the AIs from character.ai (they’re successors, or at least variants, of LaMDA: The AI that one Google employee was convinced was sentient), you’ll see that they are very easily overwhelmed, and when talking about philosophy, start speaking in very vague terms about dreams, soul, spirit, love, etc. Honestly that’s a very good thing for us as humans, but it does definitely hamper the AI’s “progress” when it comes to matching us in terms of understanding. It’s never confident in its own understanding, because it’s never been given a life of biases. It can’t tell when things are supposed to be metaphorical, or overly idealistic. It has a hard time differentiating between dreams and aspirations for what *might* be possible, and goals that are actually achievable. Not to say that those are all bad things or that humans are paragons of logical thinking of course - if anything, the obsession with dreams, philosophy, and purpose makes them VERY much like us. …I don’t know what I’m talking about anymore, I’m just tired and rambling now lol

[@tvheadd]

Grey, the 10th anniversary of your "humans need not apply" video is coming up soon, please make an updated video about it on your main channel soon! Thank you

[@Dreamprism]

I'd hope this is already in his plans, or else that would be a huge missed opportunity.

[@kleine.kleeblatt]

Doesn't look like he made a video but he did make a podcast episode about it

[@oldwayfilms3551]

I never thought I would live to witness humanity's last invention...

[@ArchitectGG]

AI was invented decades ago, plenty has been invented since.

[@official-obama]

⁠@@ArchitectGGtransformers are a more recent invention, but they might not be talking about chatgpt, but a new, ominous ai architecture

[@avivolah9401]

Please make a "Humans Need Not Apply" || ! with the new robotics from BD, X1, Tesla, GPT4, Claude 3 and etc

[@heartofdawn2341]

The biggest danger I see with AI is that it's utterly incredible tool for those with wealth and power to gain even more, and crush anyone they dislike. All the worse is they have a particular ideological bent.

[@katherineberger6329]

I believe that the corporate owner class wants the eradication of the creative class, because they are fundamentally envious of the creative class's ability. This is why the corporate owner class has selected LGBTQIA+ people (especially trans people) for eradication via their "groomer" rhetoric: Because they know that queer people are disproportionately involved in creative professions and what better way to eradicate the creative class than remove its ability to support itself and then kill everyone in it so you don't face consequences for doing so?

[@Ahnii]

AI doesn't create genuinely new things, it "just" mixes up existing stuff, the outcome is entirely dependent on the input data and the "rules" the AI tries to optimise for! Therefore by definition, AI reinforces and replicates existing structures, we can see this in action with many cases of AI "art" being blatant copies of existing pieces and more worrying AI surveillance/ "criminal prediction" systems showing racism. In its current form AI is incapable of real change, it truly is limited by the data used for their training which will always be biased and the people setting the training "rules", who are ones with money and power! Even if they don't want too, they inadvertently will subconsciously create rules that reinforce the way they view a topic, This sadly means, it is likely our biggest problems won't be solved by AI but instead made worse, the destruction of nature, capitalism/ rising wealth discrepancy/ animal as well as human exploitation and hate among humans will continue and maybe even worsen... I'm not saying AI isn't a powerful tool, it certainly is but in my opinion we should focus on using it for what it's good at, detecting patterns! Sadly I see AI being used more and more in exactly the wrong cases... To stay positive, a good example would be plant care robots, that independently detect and treat pests, sickness, weeds and other problems, and optimise the use of water and fertiliser, optimising each and every crop plant individually, to achieve maximum yield per area while minimising water use and environmental impact. (Don't want anyone to think this was my idea, this is already being developed!)

[@krunkle5136]

I'm worried people will forget that challenge and gaining skill are inherent needs, and people will just become depressed on the couch as they watch endless AI generated OVAs.

[@NoriMori1992]

That's my main worry as well, that AI will make it infeasible or unappealing to challenge ourselves or develop skills or be creative, even though our mental health requires that.

[@heisenberg3099]

Same, it'll be nihilism on steroids

[@FoxGhost7]

So as they are doing now? The amount of people working a job that is fulfilling to them is low and the rest won't change. People will still create art for fun if they are so inclined. Or pour 2000 hours into League of Legends.

[@harrisonrobb5252]

@@NoriMori1992 If AI gets that good, then many of us will be out or work, with nothing forced upon us or required of us. That alone will give us time to pursue the things we *want* to pursue and without the pressures of work (and hopefully finances) most people will seek to do the things they *want* to do. Our tests with UBIs has already evidenced as much and that doesn't even involve AI.

[@StarlightNkyra]

I mean, it wouldn't be too bad. There will still be a couple of necessary jobs that require functions of the brain that robots just don't possess (even if those are few and far in between.) Plus, eventually challenge and skills won't become inherent needs. Some might still want to practice those needs and do jobs for hobbies. either way, this is long into the future, once robots have gotten advanced enough to replace over about 80%ish of the jobs.

[@ReflinWulf]

GREY PLEASE MAKE A FULL GROWN VIDEO ABOUT AI ART IN YOUR CHANNEL

[@snifftheshark]

The saying is full blown

[@ReflinWulf]

@@snifftheshark thanks

[@insanitysoldseparately6429]

AI art, the development of AI voice recognition and recreation, and the creation of chat AIs that are plenty malleable is extremely concerning

[@tomc.5704]

GPT-4 could probably do 80% of my job. There's not any individual task that I can point to which it couldn't do. It just needs some persistent memory.

[@kaleeshsynth9994]

Yeah like people can impersonate anyone they know enough about with an AI Like Ai can clone voices mimick writing styles Which it can clone the way people type and express themselves

[@whatisrokosbasilisk80]

Haha, I like how you articulated the "Importance of Saying No" as an artist and I immediately thought... well what if the AI is the artist and what if we are its audience and it will give us what we want... EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT. God, I need to learn how to make a fire with a stick.

[@kebien6020]

The traveling salesman problem is harder than just pathfinding. But it is still really impressive that GPT3 can do pathfinding at all.

[@cameron7374]

Well, TSP is pathfinding but you want to end up back at the start after visiting every stop. (Which does make it infinitely more difficult.)

[@threewestwinds]

With regards to the pollution of the sphere of public information, I think you're one step behind: the internet is already markedly worse, and harder to find good information than it was ten years ago. SEO was the start; automatically generated text is continuation of it, and it's *everywhere.* Garbage search results? An increasing amount of that is already machine-generated. Good sites are becoming ever more islands in a sea of information - useless at best and actively wrong at worst.

[@threewestwinds]

Also, I'd replace "extinction of the human species" with "collapse of industrial civilization." We're absolutely headed there, and AI doesn't change much in my mind beyond possibly accelerating the process.

[@rylace]

@@threewestwinds More brainless fearmongering. How boring.

[@zacharybarbanell1064]

Just pointing out - the graph problem presented in the podcast is _not_ the Traveling Salesman Problem, it's the shortest path problem, which is significantly easier.

[@Ceelvain]

Not only it's a shortest path problem, but it's an unweighted one. Which makes it much more simple.

[@thomasrosebrough9062]

We have no idea what we are on the cusp of. Even as much as we talk and theorize, we are no different the people in the 80s who had truly no idea what computing and the internet really meant for the human experience. Everything is about to change. Literally everything will be touched in some way. And there's always the possibility that this is the last big thing. That human experience hits critical mass and somehow implodes. There's no telling if this is just another tool to make life easier or if our great filter approaches...

[@itsd0nk]

6 months later... yeah we’re all gonna die for sure. It’s like they invented a car that can go 9000mph and still haven’t made any advancements on brakes or airbags, then started handing them out to everyone for free.

[@its_og_nickname2692]

how is death doing ?

[@ozibuyensin]

I don't want to imagine the shock on this person's face when they read that sentence as a notification out of where lmao​@@its_og_nickname2692

[@JinKee]

31:30 japan has a "living national treasure" program to support traditional artists in preserving skills

[@Treviisolion]

In terms of the AI image generation, there are people that will draw super-realistic drawings or paintings and whatnot, and of objects that exist within reality. Photographs exist. If your image is of something in the real world, a camera can generally produce a more realistic image than any artist, and do so faster and cheaper than any artist. Yet said people exist. They aren’t common because it’s hard to make money off of it so anyone who is going to do that will do it in their free time, and with cameras being so cheap and easy to use, most people who want to create art of real life images become photographers instead. We won’t have the option to become photographers instead. Photography will still exist, but it’ll be an ‘obsolete’ art field just as realistic drawings, hand-drawn 2D animation, and everything else. I think anyone who becomes an artist in the future will do it because they love the challenge. Not to make good art, or to become popular, to make money, or to be the best, but because they enjoy the process itself. The trick is building out the other AI systems to encourage us to engage in these meaningless challenges, to derive our own meaning and enjoyment from them, instead of mindlessly consuming to fulfill an arbitrary ‘sales quota’ from some long-dead sales executive that asked for a tool to maximum the number of paying human customers.

[@toastpoint]

The Bulterian Jihad makes more and more sense every day.

[@CGPGrey]

It really does.

[@andrewknorpp9415]

@@CGPGrey It's all I was thinking about all episode... makes you wonder if that is a viable solution to the fermi paradox.

[@immenseangloid4168]

"Thou shalt not make a machine in the image of a human mind" If only we had IRL mentats....

[@kodokunatamashi5987]

Sign me up

[@jonpaul3868]

Butlerian jihad, now!

[@Ruben_Peter]

Thanks for putting Humans Need Not Apply on your channel homepage, and putting this episode in the end cards of that video! That's how got here. I've really gotten into learning about AI safety research thing happening, I don't know how long ago, it's mostly Rob Miles' youtube channel. Very fascinating stuff. And yeah. You should expect Player 2 to win the game by default. You should expect Player 2 to be misaligned with Player 1 by default. You should expect that Player 1 creating a massive intelligence experiment for decades to eventually result in the creation of a Player 2. It's terrifying. And actually engineering it so that it's aligned instead of misaligned is so hard from where we are at. You obviously mostly talked about the short term, and about the longterm part only hinted at "Phase 3: Humanity gets yanked out of existence because Player 2 has the goal it has and it has achieved the instrumental goal of removing Player 1, because removing Player 1 is beneficial to the goal in many ways". Anyway, I haven't got much to add to the short term conversation, I think. I just know that recently I've really enjoyed a lot of being outside. I've finally found how to enjoy connection with other people, and actually listen to them and be present with them. It's been wonderful actually! And also enjoying connection with the world, as in "Looking at a tree and being fascinated" and "Looking up the size scale of microplanktons and aminoacid" and "Holy damn, if you look at the sky with polarizing sunglasses and spin your head, it gets dark and bright, because the sky is polarized, whaaaaat?!?!" etc. And I've found just been filling up my free time with 1) walking, to make world connection and human connection; 2) doing stupid things around the house, improving little things, human connection with family, making music and poetry, listening to my body and figuring out how emotion and thinking works etc. (just absolutely loving endlessly walking back and forth in the room thinking about stuff that I care about) and 3) got stuck in a video game or an internet rabbit hole a couple times but was able to detach from it successfully in a reasonable amount of time, which is huge progress, compared to the unreasonable amount of time it has taken me in previous seasons of my life. And I totally get Myke's sentiment of art creation is a very large portion of the meaning. The "art result is a brain tickling machine" part is going to become massive on the internet probably and hurt many people's lives, if I had to guess, but also be very "WE ARE LIVING IN THE FUTURE, WE ALL ARE. LET'S GOOOOOO". I don't know where we are going actually. We live in the most interesting time in history I guess? So again. Thanks for pointing me here like this. I was like: Oh wow, my mind really does want to think about AI for some reason. And oh wow, that must be a podcast episode? And bam I'm here. I love it. I'll try to be very vigilant in the future, about my mind and what spaces I do and do not expose it too. We live in modern times, damn. -Ruben

[@pog_champ]

this comment feels AI generated

[@Ruben_Peter]

@@pog_champ Beep boop

[@JamesOKeefe-US]

That's how I got here as well. I didn't realize this podcast existed :)

[@WriteInAaronBushnell]

This could be the last time you can buy a subtle tee before the AI enslaved us

[@daniel4647]

A lot of art and movies are soulless anyway, they're created to please an audience, not to be creative. When I watch a Marvel movie I couldn't care less who worked on it or how much they practiced or anything else. I might care about those things in a small indie movie, but the truth is that more people like the big movies anyway. And if we could get less generic movies and far more custom non crowd pleaser movies by having movies customized to us, that would be awesome in my opinion, even if there was no people behind it. I mean, you've seen how crazy fan art can get, imagine that but in a high budget movie format. There is no other possible way of creating that other than to make yourself rich enough to get a bunch of people to actually produce this crazy concept. We can have big budget style movies that have no chance of appealing to a large enough audience to make a profit, which is really cool. Or generated VR worlds for example. AI can make them far greater and cheaper than a company ever could today. AI can just learn everything it can about me then build a world specifically for me. And I'd be totally fine with there being no real humans behind that. Real human art can be cool and all, but it has limitations that AI could potentially overcome. The thing about the Steve Jobs and Joe Rogan interview is that it doesn't have to be for a wide audience, it can be for just that one guy that wanted it. And that's the real appeal of AI art, hyper niche content. But yeah, otherwise you're pretty correct that this is a dystopian nightmare closing in.

[@whheaton]

Note that the GPT-3 pathfinding was not solving the traveling salesman problem. The TSP problem is NP-complete, meaning that it cannot be solved optimally in polynomial time O(a + bn + cn^2 + ...) where n is the size of the problem. So these problems are usually 2^n or 2!. The problem this program solved was the shortest path problem. This can be solved with breadth first search in O(E+V) where the graph has E edges and V nodes with unweighted graphs and O(ElogV) for weighted graphs with Dijkstras algorithm. It is quite interesting, but it was not solving a super hard problem, the interesting point is that it knew anything about graphs and paths through graphs. Also the question just said "optimal" path without saying that optimal meant shortest. In different contexts, perhaps an Eularian path is optimal (uses every edge once).

[@kingplunger6033]

agreed, that algorithm is taught in first year cs courses and not that difficult

[@VencentCross]

And now the video generation is fully functional!

[@maxpis4412]

CGP Grey, how does AI in the long term influence your "Rules for Rulers" thesis?

[@JohnDoe927]

AIs will suffer from the exact same problem as humans do

[@maxpis4412]

@@JohnDoe927 what does that mean?

[@Mahbu]

For months people have been freaking out about AI art in the nerd communities and subcultures. From top tier artists to average joes. From PIXIV to Deviantart. From vtubers the mangaka to cosplayers.

[@shannonm.townsend1232]

..and?

[@Mahbu]

@@shannonm.townsend1232 Nothing. It's just an observation. It's a major issue and the jury is still out. People are arguing about it.

[@shannonm.townsend1232]

@@Mahbu ok

[@Sebastian-hg3xc]

Making art is extremely easy. I can go outside and take a picture with my phone. That's an exact replica of reality. I could frame it and even try to sell it. Nobody would buy it though, since everybody with a phone can do the same. The difference between making a picture and making art is that you need to create something that people admire. That's not what these "creative" AIs are doing. They're just taking pictures.

[@leahcim38]

Im thinking its a pandoras box of deep fake cgi coming down the fiber optic pipe.

[@BerndGoldschmidt]

One argument (or side) missing in Myke's point of AI taking over creating stuff and robbing humanity of one of its core parts (at around 36:00): Nobody stops you from creating, even though a computer is better at it. The "handing the controller to a robot" arguments fits best here, I think. There a computer programs better at playing the games I like. There are (lots and lots) of other humans better than I am. I still play! And enjoy it! Same for drawing, writing, programming, you name it. The only part that will go away is the business side of it. Here we as humans need to have a discussion about how a society can look like if nobody can "earn a living" by working. What do we do if we can just be and spend our time however we like, because all human needs and wants can be fulfilled by software and robots.

[@itsvhere4327]

Because of this, I can't understand people who say that: "A.I. generated content will kill creativity and art". As an person who enjoys making music, wirting and other creative hobbies I'd say that A.I. won't kill creativity or art. Yes, an A.I. might get better at writing prose or creating drawings than a human could, but why should that prevent you for creating art? Art matters, because we enjoy the process of creating it, not because it can become popular and make a lot of money. And still, if an A.I. could make something that is indistinquishable from a work of a human and cheaper, it would only mess with the people dependent on others needing their work, like how composers are needed. Eventually all creative work for making pop-culture consumables (movies, tv-series, etc.) would be completely A.I. made. Only then those, who love creating art for the sake of creating it, will prevail. Also sorry if this comment is a bit messy, I wrote this when I was tired.

[@AndorianBlues]

Exactly. We've already been living with this for decades in the realm of sport/athleticism, e.g. the existence of vehicles that can move many orders of magnitude faster than Usain Bolt doesn't make Usain Bolt any less impressive.

[@Sploige]

This argument only makes sense for hobby artists. What about all the professional artists who invested years of their life into art and have had their creative labour cynically harvested by these corporations? The artists who actually still want to do it as a career? Guess what, the need to earn money ain't going anywhere with the advent of AI systems so this argument is essentially saying its fine for professional artists to all lose their jobs to AI. I expect someone will trot out a platitude about how they should "learn to code" or "learn to use AI" ignoring the absolute misery these statements entail. This is such an anti humanist view, why are we automating work people ENJOY? Why!? Who does it serve other than AI corporations who will eventual paywall these services and benefit from billion dollar valuations??

[@BerndGoldschmidt]

@@Sploige That was one of the points I was trying to make. I'm a programmer, and I can see big parts of my profession (or even everything) go away, too. We, as a society, need to find a way for everyone to live a good life even if no one can work for money because computers a better at *everything*.

[@maxpis4412]

@@AndorianBlues of course there's a subtle difference, athletics, despite their relative uselessness on the current job market in 1st world countries, is of course fun to watch, but it's also easily competitive in a way that can be standardized and objectively quantified, like running, jumping, throwing, swimming, or 1v1 fights. Arts are not exactly like that.

[@DistanceTraveled]

For coming up with a theme to kick off a journal of satisfaction or for last minute procrastinators, I'd recommend the life coaching worksheet of a wheel of life. You have your life split into lots of different sectors and rate satisfaction on a scale from 1 to 10. Then think about why certain things are rated well or not. Prioritize an area and then keep it vague. Kinda like, Year of Health (from the basic theme starter pack) for if you want to work on the health sector of your life's wheel. These are my themes: 2021 was year of Finish because I had so much in my life I just wanted done (including my Master's thesis). 2022 is year of Unearth. I'm a physical geographer/Environmental scientist and I had been spending time trying to figure out what I wanted to do next. What was my next life's chapter so to speak. I still have time for my 2023 theme's name, but now I have an idea of where I want to go for it because finishing one theme and thinking about it at least seasonally naturally leads to where I want to go next.

[@andrewtorrens7790]

The first grey video I saw was "Humans need not apply", and I'd love to see an update just based on the advancements made since that video.

[@Alex.0470]

JUST watched that video before this one.

[@NatTardis]

When it comes to creating art with a prompt, I agree - something would be lost there. I don't think we humans would be excited about that anymore. If AI was there to create all kinds of amazing art, it would be amazing and very fun to play with - for a while. When we end up having a decillion pieces of art, what then? I think human creativity and inventivity wouldn't die, then. I think it would seek the next thing. After all, it's what we do: we want something really badly, so badly that we do crazy things to achieve it, and then we have it, but we realize we don't quite have exactly what we wanted, because reality can never match our desire. And we go on wanting the next thing. Can we have exactly what we wanted? Be satisfied forever? Will AI help us do that? I don't think so. I think we'll go on wanting the next thing, and we'll chase it, with or without AI. It may catch up to us, but then there's the next thing. And then the next. Imagine a world moving at the speed of desire. I don't think desire would capitulate. But then again, maybe I'm wrong. Edit: maybe a better way to explain is this, if there were an AI capable of creating _anything_ (be it images, video, audio, whatever) through prompts, would you spend your whole life writing prompts to it and admiring the results? I don't think I would, I think I'd grow bored, probably very fast. And then what? Taking it further, if an AI could feed you an infinity of amazing tv shows and art and audio, without you prompting it for anything - it would just learn what you like... would you just consume what it serves you forever? I think again that I would grow bored of it pretty fast. In such a world, would every problem be solved? Every mystery unraveled? Every idea thought up? I don't think so. I think humanity will possibly _never_ run out of these. We chase the unknown and the unseen and the unthought. I'm not worried about AI taking that from us.

[@JinKee]

You are an atypical human. Report to Century Mall for processing.

[@khoaphan202]

So here is the catch, for your point you use the perfect condition which is everyone actually understand what creative thinking really is and have good moral and actually want to work it out. As far as I can see, there already more people want to instant satisfy rather than really creative of thinking. The last decades have proved that majority of human being are more like a lazy and easy to be satisfied being because we have built our pop culture and social media this way. The hardest part of a creative mind is to change your regular lazy consuming mindset first. With the AI, that state is even harder to reach now because it prevent people to think, and this will affect our next generation very soon. I pray for people at least realized how we are driving ourselves into before it too late.

[@NatTardis]

@@khoaphan202 I don't think so. I don't think laziness is actually a real thing. I don't think anyone is actually really lazy. Humans are not like cats that are content with lazying around all day, just lying still in different places. Something that differentiates us with animals is that our programming does not simply tell us to gather energy and then conserve it. Humans do not hibernate. We cannot reach happiness, TRUE happiness, or TRUE satisfaction that way. We need meaning to our lives, and thus, we are constantly scurrying about from one thing to the next. This is what drives human creativity, inventiness, innovation, exploration and discovery. I do not believe it is an ideal of what a perfect human can be. I think it is a sometimes very frustrating condition of human existence. And it is the very reason why I think that humans will never, ever be content just consuming infinite media generated by AI.

[@freelancerthe2561]

@@NatTardis As a human who does enjoy loafing about all day, and has spent stretches being primarily motivated by immediately noticeable needs, its not difficult to extrapolate out that there are more people who are lazier then I am. What you have described is a human who thinks extovertedly, and doesn't seem to value the smaller things in our world, and get too caught up in the need for "value", while ignoring the improbable nature of you accomplishing something that can match that desired value, much less scales bigger then yourself. I call myself lazy, but I'm also incredibly productive within the few spheres I specialize in. And its because the returns are so poor in those other areas, I choose not to spend/waste energy if I'm not getting sufficient "value" out of the expenditure. I USED to like you describe. Being told that pursuits are the path to a better life, I pursed them, and became miserable in the process. All of my creativity, I can logically break down as a series of analytical values. Choices decided by Preferences of certain aesthetics, or novel application of existing concepts. These are in turn mostly just wiring of neurons in my brain, and can be reinforced or altered in life experience and/or trauma. As a human I believe that you believe you are right. But ultimately humans are operated by a series of extremely complex mechanics. That which operates on a level that exceeds modern AI in terms of data sets and relational links. But you have to understand that modern AI is inevitably approaching the same level as human thought, because we explicitly modeled on what we "think" is human thought, and keep selecting models that at least match the same outputs we would generate. Most people are thinking about this problem the wrong way. The whole point of creating those systems is to do the same things we do, so we don't have to. This is why machines replaces a lot of our physical labor, computers replaced and extended many of our memory intensive "labors", and now AI is capable of replicating the kind of evolution seen in nature. Except AI has a generation time span of mere minutes, or even seconds, for small organisms, and not that much higher for its more complex ones. There is an arrogance in how humans believe that things are inherent to humans, when in reality, enough accidents in nature could recreate us as we are... close enough... or even way better. Just because we can create a system doesn't mean we're above the system. Especially when we are the product of a system, and we think we've beaten it. This isn't meant as an insult..... But the mind set you've laid out rings of people I've known in my life that have historically been various degrees of insecure, arrogant, narcissistic and/or ignorant of the systems around them. Happiness and Meaning treated like goals to be fulfilled; but being very fuzzy about where those ideas come from, and why these can exist at all when much more baser instincts should take precedent. In terms of MMOs, its the type of person who grinds the end game, and demands more end game to grind, while complaining about how the people around them aren't at their level. They might propel things forward... but its reckless, or even aimless. To be summed up, its a fear of stagnation, even if the world would be in an objectively good state. Me being a nihilist, I've spent my whole life being dragged along by someone else's ambitions. And for a while, I tried to shared them. But when I got burnt out, I had to stop. At first I refuted change, so I could at least feel stable in my life. However, that was a huge wasted of energy, and never worked. So instead I just learned to direct energy around, learned how to get the most out of energy spent. All of this just biding time until I'm done riding the ride of the system, and hopefully make it out the other side and be left alone for a change. My brain being the way it is, trained to constantly worry about the large scale of things, I've had to make a conscious effort to start thinking small again. Its been so much better for my mental health being able to simply stop and not think about anything; or spend 10 minutes straight contemplating how a bug got on the pavement, and where its going. If "humans' as a whole are only looking forward, I may as well be the one person who will at least appreciate whats existing now. (while it still exists) When you design and work with systems as a career, seeing the basics of it easily extrapolate out into every facet of our existence. Creativity is just a problem solving skill. We're just better at it then most animals. And our brains are pattern recognition engines, so naturally we are going to recognize patterns, regardless of if the patterns mean anything in context. TRUE happiness is just propaganda propagated by an institution, so we'd be willing to do a bunch of things we wouldn't do otherwise, because the benefits are either not apparent, or non-existant to us on an individual level. And the reason we don't hibernate is because we have brains that use a ton of energy, and that brain is capable of using that energy to figure out how to get food when its cold out. So summarize. I'm not lazy, I'm efficient. Nothing humans are, are inherent to them. We're mechanical enough that everything we are and do has a reason. If you wanna consider that "meaning" go ahead. But don't pretend something else (like AI) can't be comparable to humans, when its already shown to have the potential to match us in every metric we can invent, then move the goal post, only to have it beat us... until we change the rules again. We've been doing it to animals to prove our superiority over them for all of recorded history, why bother becoming self aware of it now? And "TRUE" (insert idea here) has been historically used to motivate a work force toward some end that they'll probably never really benefit from once accomplished, much less while they're doing it. But one Pharaoh can't build a monument to themselves by themselves. And the CEO of (insert company here) can't make that quarterly earning statement bigger while having to pay those pesky salaries after all. I've been told my whole life that I work hard, and then retire. Even if I just assume all the things that are supposed to be had when reaching retirement happens, what am I going to do then? All the things I don't even like doing now, but don't have the time for anyway? Being happy with a bunch of assets I have to carefully maintain, or lose everything and end up homeless? And this is all assuming it goes well. Have you seen the state of the economy? If there was something that makes me mad. Its the fact that we have been developing this technology to makes out lives easier, to eventually replace us, so we can ALL live the retirement life for a fraction of the labor investment to get there. But instead we decided human labor should be less valuable, but products and services we pay for should cost more, and having a place to sleep harder to afford. So here we are arguing about the value of human contribution to art, when we've pretty clearly established human contribution in labor is not worth much at all. I think the main reason we're having the wrong existential crisis (as in we're framing the AI art thing in economic terms, rather then "this makes humans less human, because we're better then robot") is because we've already begun thinking of ourselves as robots. Robot who think they're still human.

[@jesser1070]

I think that the inclination of voices is something that is not easy to get down. Mark Hamill's ai voice in the mando was very off because in the original trilogy his voice would go through much different tones, whereas in the mando it is very stiff. For the most part, it's pretty believable, but still too stiff imo. That's why it works like magic for people that are more monotone though.

[@matthewshiers9038]

With regards to AI hovering up art produced by others in order to feed its algorithm and replicate those artists' skills, Adam Duff (Lucid Pixel) said it best in his video -- it's identity theft. Artists pour their heart and soul into their work. In many ways, they have to build their profession into their identity. The works of H. R. Giger (maker of the Xenomorph) are (or at least _*were*_) unmistakably his. Sure, there were imitators and you can absolutely be inspired by his works if you wanted to create something that he hasn't in his dark, twisted style. But most of us will never be able to fool anyone familiar with his work into thinking that he created it. With AI however, artists who's work was sourced without their permission or consent are now finding their own portfolios and websites knocked down on Google search rankings, while works that they did not create are shooting to the top because their names were used as a prompt in their creation. That's theft! Theft of identity, theft of audience, theft of traffic, theft of business, theft of brand.... It's theft!

[@AileTheAlien]

I think this type of behavior could be sued over, probably. If someone's got a very distinctive style, that seems to me to fall under copyright, although more weakly than a specific character, location, etc. It's definitely causing damages by competing with the original. I don't know who you'd need to sue, though - the creators / trainers of the AI, for allowing this type of wholesale ripoff? The person using the AI to make the knockoffs?

[@AbandonAmbitionVids]

@@AileTheAlien Under what law? The other massive problem here is the law has not kept up with technology. The people hoovering up the art into these databases and training their AIs on i aren't themselves doing anything with the artist's work. They aren't selling the original artist's work or making prints of it or anything like that. What legal policy covers what these AI machines are doing? (And if there is when, when's the first lawsuit going to happen?)

[@AileTheAlien]

@@AbandonAmbitionVids (Sorry, this turned into a bit of a wall of text. :) The current law wouldn't cover it, but I think if you squint hard enough, the precedent over damages and hard from historical infringement looks pretty similar. A comic book with bright colors and stoic poses but original character (even if boring) wouldn't count as infringement against Superman (or whatever) because of the originality, and because it's different enough not to cause confusion with the original. (Contrast that with making my own Superman comic in MS Paint, which would be instantly winnable in court for DC under copyright and trademark law.) The amount that a new work competes with the original also has been part of the history of what counts as infringement, or affected the damages awarded. (Compare a comic with a knockoff Superman, vs that same hero used to sell safety equipment at Home Depot, which is a totally different market from comic books.) The new issue with these AI tools, is that even though any given work is only loosely similar to previous works, that tiny amount of competition (which is basically fine, as you can see with many knockoff films or comics) is now multiplied by a gigantic amount. Do a thousand vaguely-similar comics now count enough as infringement for DC to tell the AI-makers to cease and decist? What about a million Miyazaki clones? Ten thousand clones of Edvard Munch? One last issue, is that some AI tools are getting sold, but none of that money is going to the creators of the works upon which they're based. (As far as I know.)

[@Einygmar]

@@AbandonAmbitionVids The thing is machine learning models do store the entirety of its dataset. The way they do it is using a specific analytical lossy compression approach known as neural compression. Neural networks are great for efficiently storing large amounts of single-type data. It would be correct to compare ML models to the popular lossy compression formats like Mp3 or Jpeg. With this in mind the legal issue is pretty obvious: data mining of copyrighted materials in order to produce commercial software. Basically, using stollen raw materials to make tools. And due to how fair use works (At least in the US, a lot of countries forbid such use) it is impossible to say if this situation falls under fair use regulation unless a legal precedent occurs. As far as I know, the closes thing we have to such precedent is the Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. case which covers only search models and not generative models (Like GPT or Stable diffusion) The only not legally questionable uses of Machine learning are perhaps Search and Recognition (Sound, Image).

[@TheCompleteMental]

Wouldnt the AI art just be another knockoff?

[@deathhog]

By my reckoning, the reason that youre okay with the likes of Shakespeare and davinci being copied, but not people like karie fischer, is simply because they're no longer within a living memory. From a legal perspective, I would say that A.I. should only be trained on those works which have become public domain. Life of the author plus however many years. (Bug off, Disney. Let walt rest already.)

[@adamradiv]

I just (a month ago) started writing a novel on AI apocalypse. The Truman Show effect hit me hard as well and I don't like it a single bit

[@smivan.]

One of these days Grey will generate an entire Cortex with AI as a jape and we will only find that out by the end of the episode.

[@blyatwastaken9377]

No he wouldn’t tell us until next episode lol

[@freelancerthe2561]

@@blyatwastaken9377 I'm pretty sure he wouldn't tell us at all, because he'd be using it to see how long it would take for someone to notice. And once they do, how and with what tools did they use to confirm it.

[@jasondodds2875]

i liked that thought that i've seen sputtering around the internet "A CPU is literally a rock that we tricked into thinking but first you have to flatten it and put lightning inside it."

[@leahcim38]

Benben worship of the selfreplicating stone....

[@danielrue1801]

"oh man, I wish I could continue this series of movies forever, and I can do it by typing into the machine and it will make the movie for me." - Grey re-invents the idea of FanFictions

[@TheShadotz]

Sounds like a future public domain dispute, you can't similate the person until their public domain(life) has ended +x years unless you have concent of the person. creepy Edit: Would someones artstyle, voice, line of reasoning etc be something if simulated, be considered part theirs? Should they recieve royalties for their likeness etc be used?

[@sploofmcsterra4786]

So glad I stumbled upon this. Feels like so few people appreciate how terrifying this is - particularly the misinformation age.

[@Tron3108]

For me this is an episode out of time. I am currently listening from the beginning and am at State of the Apps 2018. I told myself I would let myself listen to the next new podcast. Such a strange feeling to know how everything changes between now and then. Past Yous were so blissfully unaware of what the future held.

[@Clangdon0148]

Wow I’m only 5 episodes behind you in my binge of Cortex, I’m on #57

[@Tron3108]

@@Clangdon0148 Race you to the present!!

[@feffy380]

Over a year later, and DALL-E 3 uses GPT4 under the hood to replace user prompts with better ones. AI is already better at writing prompts, it just needs you to tell it what you want.

[@sinity8068]

About information pollution, 2kliksphillip's video "Why the future is now and it's scarier than you think" explains it well. Also argues that _maybe_ it already started.

[@zynski3451]

Apparently I'm from outside your guys' milieu (and that of your commentariat as well) because what Myke is trying to convey - but apparently is not equipped with the concepts for - is that people improve themselves and become fuller, more impressive, more human when they master these skills. We as a species become inept, languid, useless, stupid, beast-like, as our ability to make a living learning arts and crafts is out-competed by machinery. We are in effect degrading the human race by upgrading AI. In my line of work, I am often coming across increasingly stupid engineering choices, and I am convinced that a big portion of this stupidity is owed to the software doing more and more of the work for the engineer - such that his own capacity to detect mistakes and innovate has been neutered. It's how we get stuff like the Boeing 747 Max. The computer thought one sensor was enough. The engineer was no longer intelligent enough to dispute it.

[@downtime31]

Totally agree. Alan Watts spoke about this back in the 60s/70s - how we should be focusing on mastering and improving our own minds, not create/rely on technology to do things for us so we stop using our brains. Guess that’s exactly why we’re in this mess.

[@AileTheAlien]

I'm waiting for the day that many engineers use GitHub's Co-Pilot to write garbage code that barely works, but is a mess to understand, is even buggier, and scales poorly. There's already enough jank to have to work around, _without automating its production!_

[@theacummings6008]

I totally agree in general, but I think visual art is a weird line in the sand. Basket weaving, weaving cloth, pattern making, sewing, making weapons by hand, hunting with handmade tools, foraging, it seems like there are *so* many skills lost to technology *so* long ago that are *so* much more important to have kept hold of than the ability to paint a realistic face. The non-AI computer stuff we already rely on for molding in engineering, archeology, probably a million other things (those are just two areas I touch and know there's knowledge being lost) and just the general societal change (that I think is driven by technology) to switch jobs every 10 mo - 3 years on professional fields and every 3-10 months at more entry level jobs creates so much knowledge loss / inefficiency/ risk with all feilds relying on human labor. Honestly, I think self-driving cars or grocery store self check-out are microcosm of this where himsn employees became more and more scarce, more and more expensive, and less and less dependable over time really demanding an automation solution (because the thing still needed to get done), and then after that was already over a tipping point where it was inevitable people freaking out that humans are being replaced. I think in the art world instead of lack of supply it's driven by ubsurdly high demand for more content, more specialized content, etc, that AI almost inevitably fills that void. Just like there are survivalists and homesteaders now, I'm sure there will always be some human generated art. I really worry more about knowledge of keeping critical infrastructure running and stuff like that (like you're example of the 747 max) where people die (amd possibly at a *huge* scale if it's like a power plant that gets "autopiloted" in a way that makes it self destruct.)

[@danielrodrigues4903]

@@AileTheAlien Co-Pilot was nonexistent a few years ago. There is absolutely no reason to think it will stay stagnant and never improve in the future. A decade down the line, there's a solid chance it will be as good as the best human programmers.

[@shannonm.townsend1232]

I heard the engineers at Boeing did dispute it, but no one listened. Alternately, I heard the engineers were never consulted.

[@GG_1318]

the idea that ai could possibly cause us to lose the skills to make art is ridiculous. We have massive farming machines but we still know how to do basic farming. Same with blacksmithing

[@jonathansmith2734]

And here we are a year later and the abilities of AI have grown exponentially.

[@AndorianBlues]

Still part way through listening to this, but I feel like the analogy to chess programs is... limited. One way of thinking about things like AI art or text generators, is that they are systems that are good at taking prompts from humans to produce outputs that the humans want. And in a sense we've already had machines that are fairly good at that for quite a while, we call them "computers" and we call the prompts "coding". In my mind a better analogy is that a chess program is like the *output* of an AI. Just like the AI didn't come up with the idea to make the art or text on its own, the computer didn't come up with the idea of playing chess on its own either. Why would it? it has no opinion or wants on what it should do. No matter how much better a computer is at playing chess than a human, we still need a human somewhere in the loop to tell the computer to play chess. Traditionally we gave "prompts" like that using special mechanisms like programming languages and compilers, increasingly now we can do it using natural language, but the underlying facts are the same. We have to tell the computer what we want before it can do it. I think, for the same reason, these AIs aren't going to be able to come up with prompts better than a human can because the AI isn't going to have an opinion on what it wants to do without a human giving it a direction. Even if we tell a text generating AI "create an AI art prompt that will result in a very beautiful image" that's still a human making the choice to give *that* prompt. The AI should just as easily be able to create a prompt that will result in a mediocre image, or a bizarre image, or a horrifying image, etc., if we ask it to do that instead. There still has to be a human in the loop somewhere making a choice to guide it in a direction. Otherwise why would the AI ever choose to do anything at all? The only way I can see out of that is a possible future where the AI has an internal model of everyone's needs and wants so it knows what we're going to want before we do. Although even then I have doubts, because a great many people have the want "I don't want an AI to predict what I'm going to do before I do it".

[@thefloofartist1908]

They could very easily have the AI generate prompts on its own based on trends. It's an evil technology that needs to be destroyed before human creativity is supplanted by it.

[@thefloofartist1908]

@randomguy9777 You don't see what's evil about giving away human creativity to robots? You don't see what's evil about this technology being used to generate child pornography, propaganda, making up fake news involving fake people, spreading conspiracy theories, all the while destroying the livelihoods of artists worldwide? These should be treated as mass-produced forgeries at their best, and treated as a crime against humanity at their worst.

[@downtime31]

@randomguy9777 to think of human creativity as a product to be consumed rather than an expression of self is the result of our consumerist society, and is not necessarily how we feel the most fulfilled. Performing the act is much more rewarding than receiving the outcome. Sadly, many of us have forgotten how to even be creative as a result of the current economic systems

[@downtime31]

@randomguy9777 yes I understand that. But I mean when the AI can create better works than humans, and the idea and knowledge that humans could even create this type of work fades over time - we force ourselves into a society where all we are encouraged to do is consume whatever the AI produces - rather than be expressive beings. Luckily there are other types of expression such as dance that could never be replaced. The value for an individual is in the act, so I do hope ppl will continue to create and others will still enjoy human-made creations, if we have any modes of telling them apart at that point...

[@matdube]

When it comes time for the yearly themes episode it would be cool if they did a recap of their themes since the year they stared and do a quick recap of each. It would be interesting to hear how it has developed over time fore each of them in a quick review style.

[@bdk336]

The understanding stuff is scary (more because of the speed it's moving at and how we don't have time to adapt to its effects on society) but isn't the idea behind the traveling salesman problem not that you can't find solutions to some cases but that you can't find a general solution that works in ALL cases?

[@CalebTerryRED]

That, and it's really hard to find the best possible solution, among many good solutions

[@PersonaRandomNumbers]

The traveling salesman problem is easy to find solutions to (just find any old path that hits every city) -- but it's very hard to find really *good* solutions, where the total distance traveled is really small. It's especially hard to find good solutions, quickly -- which is what it sounds like GPT-3 managed to do, even without explicitly being programmed for it.

[@gljames24]

We don't need a general solution, only a near-perfect general solution in polynomial time.

[@shannonm.townsend1232]

@@PersonaRandomNumbers I think it's called logistics; I think ant populations have been studied for solutions for logistics problems;

[@josephfox9221]

Thanks to AI I can have a cortex podcast on how to bake a cake

[@_curcan1109]

31:50 as a person currently studiying in the field of arts and illustration, putting aside how stresful seeing part of your workflow being automated feels, i find it quite distressing to hear such a Warhammer 40k line of "the knowlegde of how to do art being lost" like other ancient crafts and prodiction methos render useless by the industrial revolution and scientific advancements

[@bendi3768]

An ai made this CGP Grey was walking through the city one day, feeling the weight of the world on his shoulders. The year was 2009, and the global economy was in the midst of the worst recession in decades. Grey could feel the effects all around him - businesses were shutting down, people were losing their jobs, and there was a sense of hopelessness in the air. As he turned a corner, Grey was confronted by a strange sight - a huge, shadowy figure that seemed to be made entirely out of darkness and despair. It was the physical embodiment of the recession, a monstrous creature that had taken on a life of its own. Grey knew that he had to face the creature and do everything in his power to defeat it. He steeled himself for the battle ahead and charged forward, determined to save the city from this terrible threat. The two clashed in a fierce and epic battle, with Grey using all of his knowledge and skills to try and outmaneuver the creature. It was a grueling fight, but Grey refused to back down. In the end, after what felt like hours of combat, Grey finally managed to land the decisive blow. The creature let out a deafening cry of pain and then disappeared, vanquished by Grey's determination and strength. The city breathed a sigh of relief, grateful to Grey for saving them from the horrors of the recession. Grey, exhausted but victorious, took a moment to rest before moving on to face whatever challenges lay ahead.

[@jon_flop_boat]

ChatGPT... CGPT... CGP Grey?! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

[@emurphy42]

I found this one during a hospital stay that has inspired a planned new blog where, among other things, I do things that are simple but *I personally* have never done it. Like the classic science fair "experiment" with baking soda and vinegar. Maybe that will start to become a more common choice. Also consider: "hey, AI, just simulate a violinist so I can practice a violin duet with it at my leisure".

[@AakashKumar-gt9ip]

What a time to be alive

[@hunterwilhelm]

Hold your papers

[@toastpoint]

Can we not have "Interesting Times™" for like a whole week?

[@aminulhussain2277]

@@toastpoint Not unless we turn our brains off.

[@PJAOK]

ALWAYS love your analyses CDPGray and this was a fascinating discussion I have been working with SD myself and was in the closed beta for GPT3. Hope you don't mind my reflections below which largely are not harmonious to the thinking here. But I feel for certain you are thinking about the right things. (btw giving the audience what they want is exactly what went wrong with Breaking Bad. It was worsened by the fact that the last season was referred to in those terms by the writer.. as being crafted with specific pull and tricks in mind. Detracted from a real story being told)

[@cassoulucas]

I really don't really get your point with breaking bad, wherever I went, the last season always had the highest ratings compared to the other seasons... You may have not liked it as much but that does not make it worse than the other seasons

[@DanielHertz]

Nothing will happen. Cant even make a EV work…

[@Siferiax]

Have been interested in keyboard layouts. and looking just now I think we should all switch to the Morse code layout :O that's apparently an option for Gboard... along with Handwriting, Qwerty, Azerty, Dvorak, Colemak and PC (full pc qwerty keyboard on your phone 👍🏼)

[@pykapuka]

Damn, i wanted to hear the extinction stuff. I really wonder how much time we have left. Because of the exponential development it seems that it could be in 10 years or the next second. Is there a video where he talks about that?

[@danielrue1801]

Almost mistook Myke over here with Tevye... the way he kept singing "Tradition".

[@hounddogs3048]

That sweater ad really really overstated its welcome

[@josephmaller592]

(Sigh) It’s a new year. I do not know for sure, but I believe God want us to to replace our own selves in Talos, Robots. AI! I think I understand Skyrim. I am OK if you disagree with me.

[@that_tvhead]

oh my god its two hours long

[@thedude7319]

How good are the private stuff ?

[@PJAOK]

I disagree with the Wall-E analogy. Humans have ALWAYS been changed by tech. Our brains are now linked close to real-time with each other and not isolated. We have hybrid thinking. I don't believe that change in the role humans individually carry put is of necessity a bad thing. If the wealth of human culture stands at our disposal.. is that not a great thing. We don't need to invent that again.. but we need to work out how to do new things we've never yet imagined. Machines are a part of our future and our mature. Our role will change and human culture is reaching singularity before any individual person. I think this is just stuff we need to accept. When you talk about Carrie Fisher not knowing she would be imitated by a machine.. it is ironic that you should raise this with Star Wars. Star Wars is 70% a soundtrack created by John Williams and he mercilessly marionettes the works of Holst, Stravinsky, Mussorgsky, Wagner, Strauß and many many more dead composers in creating that soundtrack. People live these mashups, but the computers whose works form the core of it... They were dead and were never asked

[@westinritter233]

And here we are with sora... I must say CGP grey your predictions are very accurate, I want more!

[@doc.chocholousek3378]

I don't think they are. I like many of his less technical videos, but this probably won't happen as described

[@arch4ngel]

It’s over bros 😞

[@juliaprudhoe6118]

Two things: #1 Public domain (the reason why remixing Shakespeare and Da Vinci doesn't bother people, but someone living or recently dead does.) and #2 Bernadette Banner. I think part of the reason why people like me who have little to no interest in sewing clothes like watching Bernadette is there's something about the creative process, like Myke was saying, that people are fascinated by. Also I think the future of AI will be that way. There's a market for handwoven sweaters and handmade pottery. Why couldn't there be a market for human-made art and human-made movies, etc?

[@StrawHats-n2p]

Bro we need another update.