Mind-Blowing AI Image Generator - Give Visual Representation to C's Concepts?

[Mark7]

People are really getting carried away by this silly silicon valley AI madness. At the end of the day, it's just algorithms pretending to be something more than they actually are. They cannot replace or even imitate the human soul.

Perhaps a more mundane predictive model... say for the weather, or gold prices will be the one that goes sentient. Guessing it's not only the algorithm but also how much raw memory and processing power are available to the application. One would think applications using neural networks would be more susceptible to going sentient, but that may not be true. Sentience may not necessarily mean high, or human-level intelligence.

At least we can fight back with water and by removing the power source.

 

[Andrew]

what are the chances that some of this art could conceivably (now or in the future) represent a glimpse into other worlds (or an alien mind)?

Well if the information field does exist and an AI can find a way to tap into that then...couldn't that be a possibility?

Here's another render I did of the Lizzies and it gave me the feeling you mentioned above of glimpsing into another world.

The paramaters for this one were: "hyperdimensional lizard beings watching planet earth".

This'll be the last one I post to illustrate my feeling noted above.

 

[psychegram]

Well if the information field does exist and an AI can find a way to tap into that then...couldn't that be a possibility?

Here's another render I did of the Lizzies and it gave me the feeling you mentioned above of glimpsing into another world.

The paramaters for this one were: "hyperdimensional lizard beings watching planet earth".

This'll be the last one I post to illustrate my feeling noted above. View attachment 62184

It's almost terrifying that you got that much detail out of such a simple prompt.

 

[Andrew]

It's almost terrifying that you got that much detail out of such a simple prompt.

I need to make a correction to the above prompt. It had quite a bit more detail in the original submission. The image file saved with the shorter keywords and I mistakenly took that for the full prompt.

This is the original descriptor: "hypderdimensional lizard type beings watching planet earth on computers, extremely evil, full body, 8 feet tall, alligator, standing upright inside space ship, wearing uniforms, militaristic, science fiction, highly detailed, expansive view, 4k --ar 16:9"

 

[ziutek]

My daughter showed it to me in the Midjourney Bot program. Quick Start Guide - Midjourney Documentation. Fascinating.
I provided the phrases: Bermuda triangle, pyramid, crystal.

 

[987baz]

I started putting some of my song lyrics into it to see how it would translate them into an image... very interesting indeed.
TBH I think this is a great tool to play with, I'll probably generate a bunch of images and refine and add to them in photoshop to create artwork for my music.


Thanks Andrew for putting me onto this!!!!

you can tell it to make things in the style of (insert your favourite artist) too as well as create hybrids, sketches, paintings etc
You're never going to replace human artists, but it sure is interesting to see how "it" translates images.
below are some examples

 

[Eulenspiegel]

Perhaps a more mundane predictive model... say for the weather, or gold prices will be the one that goes sentient. Guessing it's not only the algorithm but also how much raw memory and processing power are available to the application. One would think applications using neural networks would be more susceptible to going sentient, but that may not be true. Sentience may not necessarily mean high, or human-level intelligence.

At least we can fight back with water and by removing the power source.

I am quite astonished by some of the responses in this thread so far.
This technology is nothing but a continuation of a bad trend that has been going on since the 19th century, and some people seem to get carried away by what it is supposedly able to accomplish.
Keep in mind what happened when the camera was first introduced. People got taken in because they thought they were now able to reproduce what took Renaissance artists years to learn and paint, all with the click of a button. Many didn't quite realise that photography does not replace art. It maybe stimulated people's memories and through a particular style or choice of objects some could identify specific photographers, but the seemingly realistic capture of subjects by cameras left no room for the subjective expression of souls, and the mystery of the essence of subjects that good painters can express in their paintings. The living essence of a real soul does not survive the technological transition, so to speak. Photography, by its very own nature, really limits actual experience and says next to nothing about the persons behind the machine.

Our silicon valley overlords understand nothing about consciousness, as they follow scientific materialism, as outlined by Bernardo Kastrup, for example, and cannot thus replicate it (it is not even an object, in the first place). Same problem as the fact that modern humans cannot create life because they don't understand life to begin with. Whatever they would like to label as "sentient" is based on poor definitions, and as we all know, all they can do is to increase the hardware and refine algorithms, as they're still working with the idea that there is a "critical mass" that you can reach that will somehow create life and consciousness.

Well if the information field does exist and an AI can find a way to tap into that then...couldn't that be a possibility?

Here's another render I did of the Lizzies and it gave me the feeling you mentioned above of glimpsing into another world.

The paramaters for this one were: "hyperdimensional lizard beings watching planet earth".

This'll be the last one I post to illustrate my feeling noted above. View attachment 62184

Can you consciously tap into the information field yourself, with your own consciousness? What makes you think that their supposed A.I.'s can do that? And what makes you think that, given what I related about the problems of machine photography above, this "tapping" would reproduce anything valuable in terms of a "glimpse into alien worlds"?

 

[ziutek]

Given that, as the Cs said: the soul marries genetics, can the machine be ready to receive consciousness after proper preparation?
I'm thinking about the fact that all those apps and bots using AI algorithms that are released to users and treated as fun in most cases are meant to augment the database for AI. So that it learns in real time and in time it can become a prison for a group of souls. Or a "vehicle" to be used for some other entities.
If a "human machine" is used for space science, why can't a "machine machine"?
Such thoughts.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

 

[Andrew]

TBH I think this is a great tool to play with, I'll probably generate a bunch of images and refine and add to them in photoshop to create artwork for my music.


Thanks Andrew for putting me onto this!!!!

Sure thing. Do take precaution however. I think some of the members on here are particularly cautious about this for good reason. At the end of the day I think it's important we're aware of the source of this technology and to not let ourselves get carried away with it. But if it can help us speed up our workflows, it could have beneficial uses for our creative endeavors.

Renaissance artists years to learn and paint, all with the click of a button. Many didn't quite realise that photography does not replace art.

Makes sense. Thank you for you thorough explanation. Despite the title of the video that illustrates how to use this program, it wasn't my intention to infer this was some type of replacement for art. If you're an artist yourself and prefer your traditional workflow - great!

However, for myself who's in the graphic design field (to some extent), I see a lot of potential to save myself time here. So to each his own.

Our silicon valley overlords understand nothing about consciousness, as they follow scientific materialism, as outlined by Bernardo Kastrup, for example

Agreed. I think collectively we understand where this tech stems from.

Can you consciously tap into the information field yourself, with your own consciousness? What makes you think that their supposed A.I.'s can do that? And what makes you think that, given what I related about the problems of machine photography above, this "tapping" would reproduce anything valuable in terms of a "glimpse into alien worlds"?

Please re-read what I wrote. I did not suggest this particular AI had these capabilities. Nor do I know what "tapping" would reproduce - if anything. It was a hypothetical thought in response to Approaching Infinity, that I seriously would not be surprised if it was achieved one day.

At that point however, that would seem to be more akin to a type of channeling, and could be dangerous - peeping into places you shouldn't be. Just the thought of being able to do such a thing doesn't sound like something that should even be in the hands of humans.

Again, Eulenspiegel - just a thought. :)

 

[psychegram]

Many didn't quite realise that photography does not replace art.

Nor did it. There are large numbers of artists practicing traditional techniques, a century and a half after the development of photography. Meanwhile, photography itself became in certain circumstances a unique art form, entirely distinct from previous visual arts, and on the other a very useful tool for humanity.

I don't see any reason why this technology will not result in similar developments. Even if the people who developed it are inspired by a misguided understanding of the nature of consciousness, that doesn't mean that the tool itself is inherently evil, or that it can't be used by those who do understand consciousness (even if only intuitively).

 

[Eulenspiegel]

Andrew, don't take me wrong. I am just questioning the underlying assumptions to provoke a deeper discussion.
I know that it could be a useful tool for prototyping and could also function as a sort of idea-prompting machine. I just worry that our current education system (constant exposure to the technomaniacs from Silicon Valley and lack of transmission of older cultural and philosophical thoughts) will lead in the direction that BHelmet indicated; where future generations can't even tell what made older art made by actual humans different from soulless digital art.
@psychegram
First off, based on what I know about machine learning, they will only be able to create simulacrums of the mind, but not the soul. This will fool some people into thinking that the machine is sentient, but it will never really come to life and seek spiritual liberation, for example. Neither will it understand qualia. They can only refine algorithms to better imitate the part of humans that already is machine-like, the mind, which mostly just interprets sense data. This will lead to programs that will have that "uncanny valley" effect, where things almost seem real. But not quite.
Secondly, tools aren't evil or good, but they're also not independent of the minds that fashioned them, but rather a result of them. Both the photocameras as well as machine learning algos reflect a physicalist mindset and reinforce that philosophy among the population that uses them. I work in the field of medical anthropology, and the extreme shift in the approach to human health that was taken in South Asia as a result of getting forced to use Western medical equipment and methods is striking. Sure, the tools also came with the philosophy that is behind them, but the tools and methods of proof also condition those that use them long-term.
Thirdly, history shows that these tools can and will be abused by those in ponerized power, and it is quite noticeable that billions are spent on promoting the advancements in machine learning and the toys they create as a result. As we speak, China is creating its own massive Silicon Valley. Just like the American version, it is doubtful that it will be used for good. The amount of hype and money it is getting this past few years suggests that it will be part of the toolbox of corporate and government sponsored social engineering.

 

[Eulenspiegel]

Quick correction in regards to my wording: *Soulless computer-generated "art". Digital art is fine since it still requires a human artist to make it.

 

[psychegram]

Andrew, don't take me wrong. I am just questioning the underlying assumptions to provoke a deeper discussion.
I know that it could be a useful tool for prototyping and could also function as a sort of idea-prompting machine. I just worry that our current education system (constant exposure to the technomaniacs from Silicon Valley and lack of transmission of older cultural and philosophical thoughts) will lead in the direction that BHelmet indicated; where future generations can't even tell what made older art made by actual humans different from soulless digital art.
@psychegram
First off, based on what I know about machine learning, they will only be able to create simulacrums of the mind, but not the soul. This will fool some people into thinking that the machine is sentient, but it will never really come to life and seek spiritual liberation, for example. Neither will it understand qualia. They can only refine algorithms to better imitate the part of humans that already is machine-like, the mind, which mostly just interprets sense data. This will lead to programs that will have that "uncanny valley" effect, where things almost seem real. But not quite.
Secondly, tools aren't evil or good, but they're also not independent of the minds that fashioned them, but rather a result of them. Both the photocameras as well as machine learning algos reflect a physicalist mindset and reinforce that philosophy among the population that uses them. I work in the field of medical anthropology, and the extreme shift in the approach to human health that was taken in South Asia as a result of getting forced to use Western medical equipment and methods is striking. Sure, the tools also came with the philosophy that is behind them, but the tools and methods of proof also condition those that use them long-term.
Thirdly, history shows that these tools can and will be abused by those in ponerized power, and it is quite noticeable that billions are spent on promoting the advancements in machine learning and the toys they create as a result. As we speak, China is creating its own massive Silicon Valley. Just like the American version, it is doubtful that it will be used for good. The amount of hype and money it is getting this past few years suggests that it will be part of the toolbox of corporate and government sponsored social engineering.

Every technology is a double edged sword, and can be used for positive and negative ends. To take but one example, look at the Internet. On the one hand it is an unprecedented tool for surveillance and social engineering. On the the other it has allowed a vast number of people to learn and network far more rapidly than was previously possible. This forum being but one example of that.

To return it to the topic at hand, I'm sure there will be negative consequences to the machine learning image generation technology we're discussing. There always are and it's worth thinking about what those will be. However, it's also worth thinking about how this technology can be used positively. Dwelling on the negative has no effect on the objective fact that this technology now exists. It is a feature of the world we live in and that will not change absent total civilizational collapse (at which point, there would be other facts on the ground). So, the way to adapt, to this as to any other technological development, is to try and perceive what will be negative about it (such that the hazards can be avoided), while also figuring out what opportunities can be obtained from it (such that benefits can be enjoyed).

 

[benkostka]

Keep in mind what happened when the camera was first introduced. People got taken in because they thought they were now able to reproduce what took Renaissance artists years to learn and paint, all with the click of a button. Many didn't quite realise that photography does not replace art. It maybe stimulated people's memories and through a particular style or choice of objects some could identify specific photographers, but the seemingly realistic capture of subjects by cameras left no room for the subjective expression of souls, and the mystery of the essence of subjects that good painters can express in their paintings.

There’s something that can’t be reproduced by all our modern technology that can only be made by an artist and his tools. You can look at the tools used by a Leatherworker for decades, there’s a certain patina they develop and a look that can only be reproduced by their use over an extended period of time.

We’re quick these days to label something “mind blowing”, which in itself is a heavily emotionally loaded term, often used to cause people to draw the conclusion someone wants, perhaps similar to using laugh tracks in television.

There’s no comparison between the AI generated digital art and the design behind say the human eye. If you start looking at the eye, you can see just how amazing that structure is and think that somewhere a being designed a protein so sensitive that it can detect one photon of light and relay that signal ultimately to the brain. Something like that is mind blowing to me, it quite literally causes me to expand the way I look at many many things in Nature and the art found in that design that I’m now benefiting from. The AI stuff isn’t close, it’s quite dead in my opinion. I don’t know where the AI madness ends, but to me it sure seems headed toward the black hole, whereas if you examine the designs of Nature, well it makes me want to eventually create life, after perhaps a period of examining other “artists” designs and the tools they used.

 

[dreamer]

"Cosmic library with old books"