/anthro/ - Anthropomorphic

Do you struggle to read your W2 forms, by any chance?

>>117322 (OP) 
ai-paranoia in media is only as bad as you imagine it to be. if something ai is bad enough for you to tell, you can laugh at it, or pick out what you liked in it and explore that in real media. if something at first appears high quality that you later learn is ai, the same principal applies. you can dislike the creative process, or lack there of, while still appreciating the end result, its not contradictory. 

no one made the grand canyon but you can still find it beautiful for surface level reasons, or admire the natural processes which took place to create it.

im not even super pro ai, i just think were going to get to a point that it will be indistinguishable to most people anyway. even if this current concept of ai dies out, the idea of a machine that creates will come about again in some other form and well be right back here.

https://youtu.be/8eW9FpnLRL0?si=SzxIW_t5NroE5Y1_ this video funnily enough helped me identify my feelings on ai to some extent. these songs are only entertaining, in this case funny, because the people generating them are genuinely talented, and in this instance that process of creating them is preserved and shown. all ai works this way, indeed even humans do to, just building on top of what we've absorbed. the ai process is just one simple enough that we can quantify, so we dont respect it the same way.

question everything 2.jpg U A
[Hide] (79.6KB, 520x750) Reverse

379d425af34deaf77fed623e831e76c72d659785c5aae715146cdcf2a247a1db.png U A
[Hide] (590.3KB, 700x699) Reverse

>>117322 (OP) 
Ngl anything released after AI went mainstream  is subject to suspicion and that takes away from credibility or enjoyment. 
Can't even watch funny cat videos without constantly wondering "is this AI?". Boomers are particularly affected, they struggle to grasp how advanced the tech is now and take longer to admit they have been duped.

>boomer relative doomscrolls youtube apparently, stumbles upon a channel of some grandma with cats
>cats do funny stuff
>links it
>"hey that's AI"
>"what? No, it s a real channel, cats do be like dat"
>time passes
>vids become more and more unhinged
>cats now help grandma knead dough and make dumplings
>cats now stand on hind paws and rummage through a drawer, tossing the contents aside
>"???"
>"I guess it's a fake account or something?"

It goes beyond fun and recreational content though. This erodes our overall trust. You have to double and triple check any potentially controversial piece of information.
Also, first impression tends to make the most impact, so even if you consoom a story and later find out that it's been AI and dismiss it, some of the initial imprint remains. Repeat this enough time and you can unsettle a previously solid opinion on a topic a person may have had.


That said, listening to AI generated meme songs that make no effort to hide their origins can be quite entertaining. It's like this decade's take on the rage comics, someone clownfishposing their (often shitty) jokes onto a relatable and easy to digest medium.

>>117322 (OP) 
I don't like anything AI on principle and if there's something I enjoy that I learn was made by AI I stop enjoying it. I will write an AI manifesto some day explaining my position when I get enough time

My genres are too obscure for AI bros.

>>117330
>i just think were going to get to a point that it will be indistinguishable to most people anyway
We're already there.  We've been there for a while.  The normies absolutely cannot tell the difference.  It's no longer just Boomers and IQ-55 Turd Worlders who get one-shotted by every goofy ahh propaganda video and talking cat they see on muh social mediuhz.  This has been going on a while now.  It may have been going on before it was obvious, before the existence of the tools became known and before they came to be in the hands of every bored teenager.

One of the things this means is that nothing means anything any more.  Video means nothing.  Audio means nothing.  Images haven't meant anything since Adobe Photoshop was released and that was 36 years ago.  When anything can be faked nothing is believable, including little things like video evidence at trials.

It is so neat and so pat that it feels intentional, though of course I can't prove it.  "The purpose of propaganda isn't to make you believe something. It's to make you believe nothing.  So that you do nothing."

>>117342
Will you have ChatGPT and Grammarly help you write it?

>>117343
something something sweet summer child

>>117358
Nigger

USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST RULE 6 - You will not post ANYTHING negative of black anthro women.

>>117359
We prefer the term "Nya-frican American."

>>117342
bvckbrqken normalcattle mindset

>>117380
Normalgiraffes are the ones who like AI

ClipboardImage.png U A
[Hide] (131KB, 1132x843) Reverse

>Normalgiraffes are the ones who like AI or something

>>117405
YouTube comments are not necessarily indicative of what normalgiraffes like

>>117418
Eh... yeah, you're right. These are probably vaguely leftoidish clownfish types. Still, if I had to guess, I'd say the majority opinion on AI (amongst those who have an opinion on it) is negative.

>>117421
those who have an opinion of it are a minority

>>117405
ai sucks i dont care who else is on that side personally

>>117474
But why?

>>117340
>This erodes our overall trust. You have to double and triple check any potentially controversial piece of information.
If I may put my tinfoil hat on, I believe this is the point. Anything scandalous can be written off as "AI" as a cover for the wealthy and influential.

>>117490
Being able to make deepfakes with minimal effort is one of the main establishment anti-AI talking points though, to protect da wimin ane chirrun mostly, but also hostile actors faking statements from elected officials. Do you really believe that the five years of money and collective effort funnelled into generative AI was really a ploy to raise uncertainty over any hypothetical billionaire sex party leaks? The Power That Be are petty and small-minded, but this is ridiculous.

>>117359
BASED MODS

>>117489
first i think the process of making art is important. when i started out i was so worried about the end product that if stress every mistake and how it wasnt what i was originally thinking of. once i started to just let go nd say "hey i know i meant to draw a wolf snoot but that looks like a duck beak. im just gonna draw a duck now" i realized i could have a lot of fun just rolling with it and drawing stuff i would have not originally come up with. it was a lot less stressful then
second rich people are going to use them to replace every job on earth leaving you destitute. if you are one of the few self sufficient people theyll just claim you owe them taxes (you cant sell shit bc everyone else starved to death) and take your land so they can build another amusement park or some shit on it. if anyone tries fighting back they have a clanker army that they said theyd make to fight the terrorists (thats you now)
if you believe that nobody would do something so horrible just to fulfill their frivolous desires than youre in for a lot of disappointment

>>117576
>i think the process of making art is important... i realized i could have a lot of fun...
That's great. And I agree. But the existence of AI or AI art does not impede you from continuing to do that. Photography did not kill the painter.
>rich people are going to use them to replace every job on earth... if you are one of the few self sufficient people theyll just claim you owe them taxes... [and/or kill you]
I'll admit I don't particularly care about the loss of jobs thing because I fall into that latter, self-sufficient camp you described. Life is a sandbox game. I do not understand the people who obsess with worldly matters which will fade upon all our inevitable deaths anyways, but I am aware the end goal of AI's development (of all technological development, really) is the creation of godhood (be it for one individual or many). I am not trying to say it's anywhere near that point yet nor that it's even possible to get there (I don't know), but it is the implicit end goal: to shed humanity, the animal, and the corporeal self and all their inherent fetters. It's an arms race, really. Either we (or just one lucky individual) succeed in constructing a machine god or Rapture (or whichever prophesied divine end of the world scenario winds up being true, if any) occurs before then or simultaneously and that's when the game wraps up. Basically, I don't see the point in halting technological progress for fear of catastrophe. We'd never have progressed were this mentality adhered to from the start. If we're lucky, a perfectly incorruptible, benign individual will put the pieces together. Is that likely? I don't think so. Oh, well.
>if you believe that nobody would do something so horrible just to fulfill their frivolous desires than youre in for a lot of disappointment
Oh, I do. The odds of some Bob Page type individual being the one to activate or become the machine god is high. I suppose we should pray that, again, some benevolent individual or group fulfills that destiny instead, but do not be surprised if this is not the case. Such is life. I'm more concerned by what comes after death. But in a way I guess I understand you a little better now. You hate that this is inevitable and are powerless to stop it. That's fair. But I think one must make peace with the inevitable.

>>117607
>I do not understand the people who obsess with worldly matters which will fade upon all our inevitable deaths anyways
bc people like to postpone their death

>>117619
The entirety of modern civilization.

>>117774
well i know theyre not good at it

>>117619
That's fair. I don't think I can convince you not to hate AI or the inevitable course of technology. The original sentiment that baffles me most is this idea that, upon finding out something you enjoy was created with AI involvement, it suddenly becomes unenjoyable despite the content itself remaining ever the same. I'm aware and concede that a ton (the bulk) of such media does indeed fall in the "slop" category everyone is so content with whining about (if I had to guess: because people let the AI do whatever it wants virtually unguided and uncorrected). But if you previously enjoyed it, I don't see how the material itself magically becomes "slop" merely due to the means of its production.
I suppose it is similar to some extent to how the enjoyment of, say, a movie may be diminished upon learning of some tragedy that occurred during its production or the mistreatment of its actors, etc. Maybe you are now reminded of the aforementioned future. Is that why?

Thoughts on this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX-e9LRR_ko