I'm always skeptical of these claims. I have a few times been fully aware that I'm dreaming and as soon as I try to do literally anything then I lose it after what feels like 10 seconds, always because I wake up. What good is it to be aware you're dreaming if you can't actually fly around with superhero powers?

If we had the right data then I think it could be done in 10 years, but we don't and won't until brain implants are incredibly common.

Without ASI, I think it will take at least 20 years, +- 5. I do think ASI is coming by 2030 though and I can't guess the timeline for full dive after ASI. There will always be certifications and reluctance for brain implants. Maybe ASI can figure out a non-invasive way to do it though.

Teach AI the scientific method.

However a mind is copied, I don't think there would be an experience to the mind of being "uploaded" or moved. I would think the mind would probably not even be aware of the change unless the procedure was obvious and the copy would think nothing unusual happened unless they're told they were copied or if the procedure was obvious.

I would argue that whatever consciousness is, it is stored in the collection of states within each neuron. I don't think we're in disagreement, I just wanted to point out that the method of copying a mind yields different results. 1-by-1 could result in a copy if you didn't discard original neurons but the synthetic version would possibly be corrupted (or just slightly different) because 1-by-1 isn't instantaneous so state changes between each step.

A synthetic neuron placed into an existing brain is different from placing it in a fully synthetic brain because the synthetic neuron changes state while it is interacting with living tissue. It may be identical to the neuron placed in the synthetic mind at first, but as soon as organic neurons start sending signals to it, it changes.

I don't think you can create a copy of a mind in a 1-by-1 approach. I think that can only be achieved with a snapshot of a brain and assemblage all at once.

Yes, what the other person said, where do you get access? Or do you use KoboldAI?

We're approaching real time with a 4090 (35 milliseconds if 20x perf gain!). Exciting! Just hope it scales up to at least 512x512.

> It’s only relatively recently that humanity has discovered universal laws. I’d be very surprised if there wasn’t more to come.

Universal laws akin to if A then B? Yes. There is almost no chance for causality to break, like you're more likely to get struck by lightning 10,000 times within 5 seconds than for there to be a discovery that contradicts causality, it's not even worth discussing because if causality breaks down then nothing makes sense anymore, not even logic.

> Didn’t scientists recently discovered that some sub atomic particles displayed random movement behaviour that could suggest a diversion away from deterministic behaviour?

Yes (I don't think it was recent, unless you mean since the discovery of quantum physics). https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-quantum-mechanics-rule-out-free-will/

Even if every particle was completely random that doesn't mean the universe isn't deterministic though. In computer science, random number generators will always produce a deterministic output, but the distribution of numbers it spits out is "random". There has never been a discovery of true randomness. Particle decay is useful for creating a random distribution of numbers and it's used as a random number generator for some applications, but the decaying radioactive substance was always going to decay in precisely a certain way and the detector was always going to detect isotopes exactly where they land on the detector and always at the same time and always leading to the same numbers generated. No matter how many times you rewind time the outcome is the same. Nothing is truly random in the universe.

> However, it’s not something that can be dismissed so quickly.

Why not? Knowing what was before the BB or what caused it is literally impossible. It's like trying to see outside of a black hole while inside it. That information either no longer exists or would require a computer larger than the universe to reconstruct t=0 of the universe.

> Are there aliens. Are there superior intelligent machines. Did either of these three beings create us. Or does one choose to believe that the universe simply formed itself out of nothing. Gaseous substances simply materialised and formed life. And if we were brought into existence by either of these three scenarios, does that not change how we see free will and determinism.

None of that would change anything.

> In that there are probably likely many new universal laws that we are not actually aware of yet.

Unlikely, but as soon as evidence exists then sure. It just doesn't logically follow that P or Q can be false and I can't imagine any possible scenario where they could be, even with exotic matter or the existence of a creator. Maybe someone else can think of a possible scenario where if X exists then P or Q is false, I can't.

> If determinism is true then what happened before the Big Bang.

No one knows what caused it or what was there before.

> As equally those who believe in free will cannot prove it, neither can those who believe in determinism.

What caused the BB or what existed before it has no bearing on the discussion of free will. In order to disprove determinism, some evidence needs to be found that shows that actions can be taken by a human (or thinking machine) that have no prior cause. Even the many worlds theory and all of quantum physics does not disprove determinism. Evidence would have to break the universal law of cause and effect, not likely.

(P) Humans are only made up of matter

(Q) Matter is always affected by cause and effect

In order to disprove determinism you need to show that P or Q is false.

Free will can't be disproven, it's unverifiable because its belief is rooted in spiritual nonsense. Think about it. If P were false and humans had a spirit, then what governs our spirit's actions? Wouldn't a spirit still follow cause and effect? Why would a spirit make a decision without any prior cause? What mechanism could make that possible? All answers to this question are unverifiable. Souls have a funny way of changing whenever science improves understanding.

Maybe a special form of matter is discovered that winks into and out of existence with no discernible pattern or cause and it interacts with other matter in some way. This new matter would still affect other matter, still creating cause and effect chains. How this new form of matter winks into and out of existence isn't relevant. What if a new form of matter is discovered that doesn't interact with itself or anything else? That's rhetorical because that matter can't be discovered and would have no impact on determinism. I can't think of any possible way to disprove Q and I read a lot of scifi.

We have a ton of evidence validating hard determinism and no evidence of free will.

> 40 years ago people were really struggling nowadays

40 years ago you could afford a house and 2 kids with 1 job though? Plus this generation didn't get to experience the sex-filled, drug-filled 70s.

This was incredibly interesting to read. Thank you!

As a westerner I felt a mix of horror and awe when reading that. On one hand, a society like that does not innovate which means workers must continue to work long hours most of their lives and at some point the country may not be able to compete globally and fall into financial ruin. On the other hand, workers have much more secure jobs, less stress and seemingly less of the "1%" problem and no "trickle down" bs economic policies. It sort of sounds like Japan already has a form of UBI with this system. The part about companies taking pride in caring for as many employees as possible had me in awe.

I don't understand why Japanese workers work such long hours though and then go out to bars with their coworkers for most of the night most nights. Maybe it's a sense of community among coworkers? To the point where their coworkers are more like family than their actual family?

> This view can lead to a dangerous path, which is the "humans have no free will" claim.

Perhaps. I'm convinced that hard determinism is correct. There is no reason to think that free will exists unless one believes in spirits, the mystical, religious bs, etc. and there's no evidence of those things.

If suddenly everyone became convinced that free will doesn't exist, would a great many people become evil? Probably. I imagine there are millions of people who only "behave" because of some fear of divine punishment.

> I say dangerous, because history has shown disturbing outcomes to this way of thinking. Crimes against others become easier to justify if "free will is an illusion" and we're just walking physical impulses.

History has definitely shown that religious belief leads to disturbing outcomes, genocide and war. I'm not aware of any history that shows a group of people not believing in free will causing them to do disturbing things.

> Why is slavery wrong if humans don't have free will at all? Why is fascism evil if groups of humans are just chemical reactions?

Interesting question. I'm atheist and a hard determinist. I believe I have a strong moral compass and I think it was developed by poor parents (abusive) and a troubled upbringing. I realized what harming others must feel like for them because of what I've gone through and I simply don't want to harm others. It "feels" bad. I think morality is half genetically baked in and half human experience. I don't think religion or belief in free will is required.

> Humanism -- and I would suppose most here are humanists -- should lean toward the presumption of free will and work to defend it, not minimize it.

I don't think we should defend free will because then we're defending the mystical and unverifiable. People who believe in things that can't be proven true or false (religion) have poor critical thinking skills and often fall victim to conspiracies or radical thinking (qanon) that is hard to shake them out of and they're often anti-science and anti-fact. I think it's dangerous to raise children in an environment where believing in "santa for adults", whatever religious flavor that is. The responsible thing to do is to try to eliminate religion by passively accepting other's crazy beliefs while raising children outside of that dogma until religion is dead. At that point it is safe for everyone to not believe in free will because their moral compass won't rely on religious beliefs.

Isn't this all extremely obvious? All of our senses are lagged behind real time and the data we receive must be processed and stored before we can act on it. If A then B.

Also keep in mind you might be recorded at all times by all nearby devices, you can never be sure! My policy is to try to be nice at all times so AI can't hold a past transgression against me in 2030.

> I agree we should shape it responsibly. Which means sometimes criticizing, let’s say, SD and LAION from scrapping medical records and copyrighted images from other artists who did the real work. And yes - it was knowingly done - because there is a double standard happening with Harmonai, which explicitly does collects via an opt-in approach.

I'm pretty sure SD didn't have time to comb through however many billions of images in the LAION dataset. I doubt SD wanted medical records in their model or if they do I'm sure they'll be happy to remove any that violate HIPAA.

Copyrighted images are fair game unless the law changes. They used it for training only. If artists' work aren't included in the training data then you get a pretty shitty model.

> Your points boil down to - (1) tech is inevitable so just don’t question, (2) we don’t know what could happen, (3) this tech is harmful to peoples psyche and social stability but I’m fine so just accept it. (4) leave the ones who question behind.

None of those are my points.

1. Tech is inevitable, I didn't say don't question

2. I have very high confidence about what will happen in the next 10-20 years. I have vague ideas about what will happen after that, but that can be dealt with when it's nearer

3. It may be harmful, but so are psychopathic CEOs and kitchen knives. It's not unique to AI. I personally don't think AI is likely to be net-harmful, even when ASIs come online

4. No, I just don't feel bad for people who lose their jobs because they couldn't see the future staring them in the face. I don't feel bad that tech lifted some 90% of the world's population out of having to do farm work all day either. They shouldn't be left behind though, UBI will be essential

> But, I just don’t think gutting artists work opportunities

They will be gutted soon with or without their work included in the training data. It might delay it by a year or less because some artists will volunteer their work and there's a lot of good work done by long dead artists that can be used. Maybe the people who are so threatened by SD should move on to making things that aren't furry porn and other basic stuff. Or learn how to use it to assist them in whatever they're doing.

> I want this tech to truly help everyone responsibly with just intent. But, I just don’t think gutting artists work opportunities - and creating a world where all art has the is shadow of doubt over it (I.e “was this made by a person or a robot? I can’t tell …”)

As a consumer of the works of artists of all kinds, I don't care whether an AI or a person made something.

> I just can’t imagine what good could come out of a world where someone who is suicidal picks up a phone - calls the suicide hotline - but isn’t sure if a real person is behind the phone. Hell, they may have not even bothered to call knowing it could be a robot and not a person.

Why would that matter if they deploy an AI for this purpose and see a reduction in suicides? If they deploy it and suicides increase then yeah sure, it failed, just stop doing that and ban that practice.

I want to live in a world that's similar to Star Trek and I think it's foolish to try to halt progress.

> You're naive and looking past the obvious here. We already have a tiny form of this. Go on any social media - YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, what have you - and you are fed stimuli that has been personally tailored to the choices and clicks you make. And - you claim we are mentally doing well because of these things? Aren't a lot of societies facing declining birth rates, increase rates of mental health issues and suicide, and political polarization?

I am doing mentally well. Not everyone has turned into a drone, but yes that future could be very dark.

The tech is unavoidable though, so we should be shaping it early before it gets out of hand. That's part of why I think we need to embrace this tech and not avoid it. It doesn't matter to the developers or the users of SD how much harm it does to a subset of artists because it doesn't affect them. So now is the time to debate the implications as we're doing now to help shape the development and use of AI tools. Avoiding it altogether though just doesn't help anyone. Like, have you used it extensively and built anything using SD as a foundation? The process of doing that might change your mind.

> These are the fantastical scenarios I was speaking about - riddled in AI-favored rhetoric. It's very predictable and not far from a sales pitch.

IDK, I think that future is inevitable. There's no sign of an AI winter coming, so it's only going to get better and better.

> Just because people don't blindly believe the same things you do, and question how to use certain system, tools, or whatever, responsibly - doesn't make them people who are yelling at clouds. Besides, why not? Show some kindness.

Yeah, sorry, it's hard sometimes to empathize.

> No, everyone isn't preparing for AI because not everyone agrees with you. It's as simple as that.

I think everyone should be preparing. That's why it's so hard for me to empathize with those who don't. It's so obvious to me that AI is going to first assist everyone on a daily basis and then eventually make most humans obsolete. Preparing for this might be building skills in other domains (but fuck if I know which ones, AI is coming for art and coding before more manual labor which is a shock) or by becoming an early adopter of AI tools to remain relevant.

> I mean, hell, if you sit a person down in front of a screen and they play their favorite video game all day long, you aren't going to have a very happy, satisfied person. This is measurable right now, actually.

Maybe? I haven't looked much into that. I used to play SC2 competitively for 10 hours a day with a fulltime job many years ago and it wrecked me, but I also gained some cognitive benefits that still persist to today. I don't regret those days. I don't know if it's completely cut and dry. Also, games in the future may be very different than today's if they're personalized for the individual and if there's nothing else for humans to productively do.

> Really sad. That won’t be good life.

An endless stream of personalized movies, shows, games, and VR adventures that are tailored specifically to your tastes and even for what you need to grow and mature sounds amazing to me. Especially since they will be better than anything humanity can possibly create.

> I don’t care about the mental health of future artists or consumers.

> Even more sad. Empathy and compassion is not just for the other person. It’s good for yourself.

I don't feel compassion for people who yell at clouds. I feel compassion for people who have bad things happen to them through no fault of their own. IMO everyone should be preparing for the AI future instead of hiding from it. Provided we don't destroy ourselves, the future looks very promising for everyone, but there will be hiccups along the way.

I agree with you, but I'm so disappointed with AI assistants like Alexa. I see all this progress lately and I don't understand why Alexa is still so shitty lol.

> Lol. I mean, there it is - you were going to art school for monetary reasons and not for art reasons.

No, I just realized once I was there that being poor wasn't the life I wanted and I can practice art in my own time.

> Side note; I just don’t think 8 hours is very substantial. Amazing drawings can take way longer than that. Try a 25 hour drawing.

Ok? I guess I'm not cultured enough to understand art because I didn't spend 25 hours on a single drawing.

> And no it’s not enough tbh - because theres tangible advantages now, but how will this effect the future? What’s the end goal, really? 10, 20, 30, 40 years down the line? Do we want to be in a world where media, art, games, shows, movies, etc are not worked on but just generated at a whim for what we want?

yes.

> Are we considering how this could impact the mental health of future artists or consumers?

I don't care about the mental health of future artists or consumers.

> Like - movies and TV for example - amazing tools exits now, movies, VFX, and special effects are so advanced now. Yet - you go on the street and most people complain that everything is a reboot, or that nothing good is made anymore.

Agreed. Most of the good stuff gets canceled too soon.

> I honestly believe people want to spite artists in this way because of how hard image making can be,

I think the excitement about SD is from all of the possibilities and not a plot to screw over artists.

> yet when we see successful artists (in an age of the most commercially successful contemporary artists to every exist), we must now “democratize” it because people feel “how come they can do what they love and get paid for it, but I can’t?!?”

That's true of every field of work where only the top .001% make big money. If there is a feeling of "democratizing" this, it's likely because some people get paid way too much for things, e.g. CEOs, top sports players and musicians, etc. I've never heard of people saying we should make it so everyone can sing well so that Taylor Swift makes less money though, or anything like that.

> Right - because now it's easy. And you work for a living. So do artists now. And now you want a piece of that too. Hence the FOMO. And it will take the work opportunities away from the other artists in the process.

Well I wouldn't call it easy. Creating a game will still take a ton of work, but the art aspect is now easier yes. It has been obvious for a decade that AI will replace people. I guess I just don't care. I pursued an art degree and noped out in 1 year because it was obviously never going to be a good enough source of income for me considering the amount of work. Art degrees never were and never will be. I don't feel bad, there's a reason the starving artist trope is so prevalent. Pick a better degree!

> It kind of is a fantasy, do you know what you will make after your game? Or what those more interesting and complex things even are?

So I have to list a bunch of examples? I already gave you several concrete ones, but fine, here's what I can think of: Texture generation, pixel art, 3D model generation, music videos, integration with GPT-3 to show stories as they're told, integration with DaGAN, voice generators and GPT-3 for digital assistants, generate training data for other models, graphic design ideation, ideation in general. Is that enough? Some of these more complex steps will be superseded by new models, 3D model gen is already looking insane.

> Wrong - it's difficult in its own way.

Generating 3D models from SD outputs is novel, never been done before (until recently). It's complex, but not that difficult if you know what you're doing. I don't think complexity is the same as difficulty. SD can be used as a stepping stone to new things.

> I'm sorry, but you seem very ignorant on the actual amount of work it takes to make great imagery.

I know how hard it is. I've spent 8 hours on a single drawing before. So what? If SD let's me skip 8 hours of work to focus on more interesting things then awesome.

> This is that narrow view of art I was talking about, you are only viewing art in terms of "good", "bad", "hard", "not hard", and assigning a worth and value to it. Sad really.

I view art in many different ways, but yes of course I'm always judging it. Humans are judgment machines at their very core. I don't even know how to respond to this. Not every piece of art needs to make you stop and think about the universe. I bet you think Andy Warhol is a genius though.

> I'm not denying that it can or will happen, I'm arguing that it shouldn't. Two different things.

> I'm not saying this as someone who is pissed that the work I put in is not needed anymore. I'm saying this as someone who values human-made hard work, and that it is a valuable thing.

People are going to find things to tinker with and improve at until the bitter end. Making art easy isn't going to kill art. Making games is a form of art. If it takes 6 months to make a very polished game instead of 5 years, it's still art. And when it takes 1 month or 1 week or 1 hour to make a great game, it's still art. If we get to that point then the quality of a game will just need to be that much higher. If anyone can make a great game in an hour then someone else is going to make a better one in 2 hours and so on. Replace the word "game" with whatever you want.

> I'm glad you are creating the things you want. However, let's not pretend that you couldn't have done this before this tool. If you wanted to learn to draw, or write, or make a video game, and actually cared enough to do it, you would have done it already, or have been trying to.

Actually, no, what I'm talking about is impossible without SD and no budget. I can code very well, draw, make pixel art and do some 3D modeling, rigging and animation. All of that takes a lot of time to do and if I want to make the game I'm thinking of I would need to hire at least 2 artists to get even close to what I want, or 20 artists to make what I truly imagine. Now I don't have to. Last week I generated 20 textures in like 15 minutes and they're actually really good textures. SD gives me the ability to create what I want without being a millionaire.

> and actually cared enough to do it,

Maybe, but I'm always pulled away from what I want to do because I have to work for a living. SD dramatically reduces the time and money requirements to make a game so I'm seriously pursuing it now.

> This whole "better and more complicated stuff" notion is weird. It's all fantasy, really.

I gave you a concrete example; using SD to create new 3D models using photogrammetry (Meshroom). That is more complicated than just generating some pictures. Creating a game and heavily using SD to do so is more complicated than generating pictures. SD unlocks a ton of freedom to do more interesting and complex things. It's not fantasy.

> There is no way of knowing what will actually happen, but I think it's dangerous just to believe in promises that don't have any concrete plan or critical approach. Seems more like a religion of technology to me.

If you look at the AI progress lately and think we won't have a near future where the majority of careers are automated then you're living in a fantasy. I'm a SW dev and I fully expect to be mostly automated out of the process someday.

> You're missing the point - art is a very human thing. If you'd rather allocate art commission to machines, you are directly > rejecting a very essential human experience. You can feign pragmaticism all you want, but it doesn't change the 40,000 years of artistic expression humans feel need to do.

I never said art is pragmatic. I only said that in response to you saying I am anti-humanist. I agree with you, art doesn't need to have any extrinsic value. I do think creating art with AI is the same thing as creating art without it, though, in terms of the "essential human experience".

> Yeah, you can do whatever you want, but judging "bad" art never bodes well for people internally in the long run, especially artists. It's almost like you accept that it takes hard work, and that it's okay to work at making your "bad" art "good", while also judging it harshly? Why? Perfectionism? That's proven in many fields to be a very unhealthy way of living. I've seen so, so many artists lose their artistic spirit due to toxin that is perfectionism, the narrow mindedness of "good" and "bad" art, and hyper capitalisitc world views.

Every serious artist I've ever known (admittedly they were my 2 best friends growing up and a 3rd semi-bestie) had an incredible amount of self-loathing in regard to the work they produced. Particularly one of them, who ended up being by far the best among us. In order to become a good artist, I think it is essential to be incredibly critical of your own work and the work of others. Personally, I've never created something that I didn't think was complete garbage one year later. I don't know any other way someone can improve, or maybe this view is the result of improving and reviewing past work, idk. BTW, I have already noticed the create->look back->disgust loop when I'm using stable diffusion. There's more to unpack in your comment, but I think you think I still think of art in only a capitalistic world view, which I don't, so I don't see a reason to argue there. (sorry for all the thinks there, fun tho).

> Emad Mostaque is very vocal on twitter and online - I don't have to know someone personally to gauge how they view me based on how they speak of people like me in interviews, tweets, or what have you. He sees you, and me (artists), as just tools who do a menial task that get in the way of progress. It's pretty clear. The sleaziness of that is the LAION data set is also pretty apparent.

I'll take your word for it, I believe you. I just don't care if he were to use my work (I am not famous or great) or the works of others to make a powerful tool.

> Do you really think getting the image you want immediately will make you a more satisfied, better, or well-equipped artist?

I do, because once SD is better, I can do more experiments. For example, I'm already trying to generate 3D models from SD using Unity to generate images and using Meshroom to produce the mesh. Some success, but cohesion throws it off a bit. There's a delicate balance between transforming the original vs keeping coherence that I'm still trying to tune. Once successful, I could use these models in a game I'm making and that excites the hell out of me. Perhaps I can create something amazing without hiring 100 artists? That wouldn't be possible without tools like SD. It would allow me to focus on story and gameplay.

I see AI tools as just tools we can use to make better and more complicated stuff. One day I think AI will replace almost everyone's current field of work and maybe create a few new ones. I think it's inevitable and that's why I think I'm pragmatic about all this. It's going to happen whether artists like it or not.

> And I'm sure people like you will stop making art because it's lost all its human meaning. I keep seeing it happen, people get on Midjourney, play around with it, claim they worked really hard for 1 and half hours to perfect and an image, and a week later they've stopped posting.

Then they're not very imaginative.

> Art isn't pragmatic - lol, people have been doing it before there was monetary, pragmatic reasons to do so.

I was responding to "So you’re anti-human, essentially." when I said I'm just pragmatic.

> And I look at "bad" art all the time, I enjoy seeing people be creative. If you go around labeling art as "bad", or "terrible", you're just making an ass of yourself.

I disagree. I mean, everyone says you can view art however you want. I choose to think that art with bad proportions, bad lighting, bad whatever is bad art. I don't shit on people for producing bad art because it's a skill that takes work to hone. I do judge it harshly though and there's nothing wrong with that.

> Again, anti-humanist behavior, and it just shows that the people who make these models are so, so very far removed from how art is actually made

I don't think you can know this unless you know the devs personally.

> and what it feels like to actually make art.

I'm an artist but not by trade. I know what it feels like to make art and using SD feels exactly the same way. I do have to use a lot of photoshop to get the exact results I want, but once I no longer need to I'm sure people like you will get mad for some reason.