I'm a cyborg. Not even a joke. Part of me is machine/computerized. An implant.

I think anything made with AI should be tagged as such. It is scary how good AI is becoming. It will be harder and harder to distinguish between AI and reality. There should also be a tax on AI seeing as it will put a lot of people out of business.

There's been a lot of talk about what jobs AI will and won't replace as it continues to develop. I'm pretty agnostic on the subject but the more I see of it the more convinced I am that - at least in its current form - there are certain thresholds it won't be able to cross. I'm speaking more from the artistic side of things, but AI is getting good at producing a bunch of content that's 'good enough' for amateur applications but still would not fly in the professional space. For instance I don't think AI will ever completely replace humans in film and tv. There's just a level of specificity, control, and continuity required that AI won't ever be able to substitute for. AI will make the tools better and the crews smaller, but it won't be able to replace them altogether. The barrier to entry will be higher in some ways and lower in others, but I don't think the professional will be obsolete any time soon. 

This belongs here as well

Grok AI Is Out Of Control





Grok Goes FULL N@ZI After Elon Update

The sooner the better.

I see more and more comments dismissing actual factual footage as AI 'propaganda'. AI is allowing people to even further refuse to believe their own eyes. Video evidence is no longer evidence, too easy to fake, too easy to dismiss as fake. 

The Truth About Deep Fakes, and What We Should Do About Them | Ben Colman | TEDxMidAtlantic

Ben Colman dives deep into the world of DeepFakes and generative AI, exposing both the extraordinary advancements and the unsettling consequences that have emerged. Colman articulates how decreasing hardware and software costs has made powerful generative AI tools accessible to virtually anyone. While these advancements enable creative and positive uses, they also open the doors to nefarious activities, including identity fraud and non-consensual pornography.

Colman provides a sobering analysis of the exponential increase in DeepFakes, illustrating its impact through alarming statistics and real-world examples. He discusses the challenges governments and institutions face in detecting and regulating this rapidly evolving technology. Drawing on his expertise and research at Reality Defender, Colman explains the complexities of identifying AI-generated media and the limitations of current detection methods. He highlights the urgent need for innovative solutions and regulatory frameworks to protect individuals and societies from the dark side of AI. Colman offers a glimpse into potential safeguards and legislative efforts, emphasizing the importance of bipartisan support in tackling this global issue.

This talk is a wake-up call and a beacon of hope, showing a path toward responsible and safe AI use as we navigate the intersection of technology, ethics, and human values. Ben Colman is the founder of Reality Defender, the leading provider of deepfake detection. Over the past 15 years, Ben has scaled multiple companies at the intersection of privacy, AI, and cyber security. Prior to this, Ben led cyber commercialization at Goldman Sachs, and was a graduate intern at Google. Ben holds a master's degree from New York University and a bachelor's degree from Claremont McKenna College.

Reality Defender is a deepfake detection platform for enterprises, governments, and platforms to detect AI-generated content and manipulations across audio, video, image, and text files. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at https://www.ted.com/tedx

That doesn't give me much hope, battle of AI tools, detection vs evasion. It's virus scanners all over again, but now at the speed of self updating software...

And regulation will be too slow, too late and also too easy to evade. AI is going to destroy the last bit of truth on the internet.

I'll admit I'm not a fan of the generic style most people use for their prompts (you know, both that vague "digital art" look and the cartoon one with thick lines), but this article on the Smithsonian reminded me a lot of the current debate about generative AI in art. 

Playing recorded music in movie theaters is very different from generative art.

The music is still written and performed by musicians. 
Next to that is, movies were already a 'replacement' of live theater (which still employs live orchestras btw)
But most important is that it was a practical solution to scale up movie showings.
(How much would a movie ticket cost with a full orchestra playing, voice actors and sound effect artists in the box)

Movies, music, sound effects,. it's all created by humans, then recorded and duplicated.
Live performances go on.

AI takes those recordings and mixes them around to create something 'new'. Like a search query translated into generative art. It's like taking the Mona Lisa and Starry night, combining them together and sell it as new art. 

Maybe it's a new art form, maybe it's plagiarism, it's not replacing anyone though.

You could say the same about DJs, they take other people's music, mix and alter the tracks to create a new set people pay to listen to. It's a new art form, but they do have to pay the rights to the music they use! That's the issue with generative AI art, it takes other people's work as base without license fees. No issue for personal use, it's an issue when you start selling it as your own.

That's how theater owners were defending themselves 95 years ago. You monster.

But the point I was making is a different one - technophobic appeals tend to have little impact on the zeitgeist, especially when there are massive economic incentives toward the adoption of a new technology. I have little doubt human-made art will find fertile ground, especially appealing to us boomers. But the younger generations, who have grown up in a world where machine learning can automate any and every form of media? I doubt it.

By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if the basis for biological creativity is shallower in layers and algorithmically much simpler than something like Stable Diffusion. Us fleshy bags have to contend with the evolutionarily likely and these lossy, noisy neurons, after all. No risk of overfitting whatsoever unless we deliberately are out to plagiarize something...

True, what is 'original' art anyway but a continuation / interpretation of prior art and experience of other sensory input. AI simply has access to vastly more prior art and recordings of everything than any human can ever experience in one life time.

The problem is, which is really just a capitalist problem, where to draw the line for copyright / plagiarism. It's up to the courts I guess, like Sony suing Tencent for Light of Motiram, Nintendo going after fan projects recreating their games / using their assets.

You can introduce 'noise' in AI recreations as well, not that that helps the debate one way or another. 



Technophobic appeals are more for the loss of jobs, like the musicians in theaters. AI voices, AI actors, AI paralegals. Far more worrying is AI censorship, AI profiling, AI decision making. Who is responsible when 'the machine' did it. If one human makes a mistake, fire that person. If an AI program controlling all flights makes a mistake, err shit, all flights grounded until its fixed.

Evolution thrives on diversity to overcome adversity. What will happen when one AI rules everything? Or should we have many different AIs.



Actually the biggest threat of AI right now is it's immense power and water usage :/ Can AI become sustainable is the bigger question.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/12/01/1084189/making-an-image-with-generative-ai-uses-as-much-energy-as-charging-your-phone/

Generating images was by far the most energy- and carbon-intensive AI-based task. Generating 1,000 images with a powerful AI model, such as Stable Diffusion XL, is responsible for roughly as much carbon dioxide as driving the equivalent of 4.1 miles in an average gasoline-powered car.

Hmm I bet a human painting 1,000 images has a much bigger CO footprint lol. But it's a different process of course, far easier to generate 1,000 AI images than paint one painting.

The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating are lower for AI than for humans
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x

Yeah no doubt, like for like AI wins. Doesn't need to eat, sleep, etc.

But

https://news.mit.edu/2025/explained-generative-ai-environmental-impact-0117

Each time a model is used, perhaps by an individual asking ChatGPT to summarize an email, the computing hardware that performs those operations consumes energy. Researchers have estimated that a ChatGPT query consumes about five times more electricity than a simple web search.

By 2026, the electricity consumption of data centers is expected to approach 1,050 terawatt-hours (which would bump data centers up to fifth place on the global list, between Japan and Russia).


And an even bigger imminent threat is the AI bubble bursting, global recession incoming :(

Technophobic appeals might be right this time, albeit for the wrong reasons.
Can AI prevent the AI bubble bursting?

ChatGPT's take

AI might delay or soften a bubble burst if:

• it continues to generate tangible value across industries,

• capital becomes more rationally allocated, and

• regulation encourages sustainable development.

But AI can’t prevent market psychology—fear and greed—from cycling. If expectations outrun reality, correction is inevitable.


Grok's conclusion

AI has the tools to detect and mitigate aspects of its own bubble—through forecasting, optimization, and proving tangible value—but it can't fully prevent a burst on its own. Bubbles are fundamentally driven by human psychology, speculative capital, and systemic flaws (e.g., unprofitable business models where training costs outpace revenue). A correction seems plausible in the near term, potentially in 2026-2028, but it would likely refine rather than destroy AI, leaving behind infrastructure for future growth. Ultimately, prevention relies more on balanced investments, regulation, and realistic expectations than on AI alone. If anything, over-reliance on AI without addressing these could make the burst worse.


Both agree it depends on humans being reasonable, we're doomed!

I feel like the polymaths in society, those that are skilled in multiple disciplines will thrive in the age of AI. In the future, we'll all be so good at things like technology and using AI in many facets of our lives, as well as mathematics/STEM fields. However, we'll lose and are losing the ability to do things like philosophy and be creative.

What happens to people that want to get into say counseling, sales, or similar fields? They'll be up a creek, however society still needs these people.  Nowadays kids in school use chatGPT before they check their book for the answer.  Or, they'll ask their AI service to write a school paper for them.  They are shooting themselves in the foot, because the real world needs you to have these basic skills.   

Finally, the value of AI seems that while it will help us in some ways, it will also hurt us in others.  We'll lose a bit our critical and other wonderful gifts of humanity to a degree as a result of using AI.  The answer choices provided all seem to be mutually exclusive, and i think that in truth it will be more of a mixed bag.