Interesting video here, it details Meta’s efforts to build the worlds biggest AI data center while completely ignoring problems introduced by physics, and ignoring the basic needs of the communites in the towns/cities where the data center is to be built.
Well, that is more a problem with huge (and rich) industries than a problem with AI. Wealthy industrialists have tried at all times to get their projects done without any concern about the safety or well-being of the people living in or near those areas.
@topic
What I have noticed in the past few months is an incredible increase in everything regarding picture-, video- and audio-art. I have seen short clips and heard songs completely “performed” by AI that actually were so good that at first glance nobody that I showed them was willing to believe that no human was “singing” here. And the song(s) did achieve an emotional response when heard by humans, just like a well-done real human performance would have (tried) to achieve.
This is actually mindblowing on one hand but concerning on the other. Because I give it another ~5 years and no human artist will be able to compete against that. Of course, some few artists will be loved for a unique style or “imperfections” in the voice that make them recognizable, but AIs will be able to “copy” that within months. I am not sure how any human (aside from a few chosen ones) will be able to make a living from painting, digital artwork or songwriting against such overwhelming AI competition that is clearly not worse than the human creators. But a thousand times faster.
Sorry for the video, I know I am supposed to write words, but I thought it is pertinent to the thread.
I will remove it if you @Aaron ask me to or the moderators do it for me.
I listened to the whole thing and I think he has touched upon several good points that few people have thought of.
Hi, I just watched the first 5 minutes and yes, it’s exactly what this thread is about.
Yes, this is exactly what I think. If AI takes too many jobs there will be less consumption of products and services and on top of that governments will have to provide unemployment benefits. Yes, an AI can make a better architect than a human and quite possibly replace a human in this field, but if AI has the same effect on other jobs then there may not even be many consumers that can purchase houses designed by AI.
The issue is here that lots of money will be invested in creating the system which designs buildings, so it will immediately be expensive, or at least it will have to be cheaper than human labour in order for it to work. Again the issue here is that decision makers want to replace the architect instead of providing useful tools to assist the architect.
Yes, a stand alone computer or laptop alone with a specific Neural Processing Unit (NPU) and AI-accelerated GPU can actually do trillions of instructions per second in a paralell manner, so I’d expect an AI can create amazing music.
Also I would say that the beauty of music comes from the fact an artist can play an instrument well or differently from others creating a unique sound which consumers can appreciate and relate to. Yes AI music can sound great but look into it more and there isn’t much there.
AI music generation can be useful as a hobby, or to crete jingles for a commecial which I guess can take work away from human industry specialists, but ultimately what sells in music and film is the human touch as people are interested to see how an actor handles different roles for example, with AI none of that is apparent.
I am not sure about that. Imho art is all about emotions that it can create in the viewers/listeners mind. Yes, there will be some exceptions where it will absolutely matter that a human performs this piece, some ultra-rich / retro-minded people will still want real human paintings in their living room. People will still go to concerts. But for the mass-market, human creativity will be mostly dead or at least non-lucrative any more.
Furniture, clothing, decoration, pop/radio music - most of that will probably be designed by A.I. and probably 90+% of the items that make money (aka being sold to someone) will totally skip the human factor in creativitiy - and it will be absolutely sufficient (if not better) than human created stuff for the vast majority of the customers. I really belive that we will see a huge drop in market share for all those “creative” jobs in the near future.
Lol, well, can you recommend an AI artist to me? or will you recommend an AI piece that a HUMAN commisioned? If the latter is the case then the credit still goes to the human.
So for example, DJ Mike Dunn might make a house music track using the latest AI software designed for electronic music creation. The credit will still go to Mike Dunn as he can’t be replaced and people will pay money to see him play music at a local venue.
If the advert for the venue says “AI DJ in town tonight” yes a few may turn up to see what it’s about but if the advert says “DJ Mike Dunn in town tonight” the people who follow him will drop what their doing and immediately by a ticket.
I don’t think Art can be replaced, it will always hold a strong value.
Yes. He uses “architects” and “builders” so he doesn’t have to say “blue and white colars” which he finds a bit pejorative.
Hmmm, not so sure on this one either, sometimes furniture is purchased which can last generations, it will take time to build a reputation for creating the most durable wares. Yes thiere might be a niche market for younger people “AI inspired furniture” where a few manufacturers have a few lines but I can’t see this becomming a big thing.
Oh wow, is anyone watching Bitcoin crash and almost set on fire and burn? I hope people don’t think AI is a replacement investment for Crypto.
I have to disagree with you here, because like 99% of all products in the future will be “designed by AI”. That won’t be a “special label”, that will be the quasi-standard. And the customer won’t even know it. Simply because it’s a lot cheaper and faster than having a skilled human do it.
Talking about literally *everything here. Accessoires, Clothing, Food, Technical Stuff, Houses, Cars… basically everything that is today designed by human artist (shape/form/colors/materials, but also the whole technical parts today made by human engineers: layout of cables, boards, chips, machines).
Development of energy prices in failed state Germany 1998 to 2022. But people keep voting for it, so they 100% get what they deserve.
Firstly we would need to understand the amount of money that is being invested in developing AI, Yes we can say it will replace a human in many jobs but my question is, will it really be cheaper? And will it be of real benefit?
The AI that would be used to design all of what you mention still sound like tools a designer would use. If I am a CEO with no skill what so ever in shoe design how would I know if the designs that an AI produces are any good? wouldn’t I still need a shoe designer to oversee it since I’m a CEO money man who wants to finance making and trading shoes?
Designing a home can also be tricky, if there is an issue with what an AI has designed then an architect is still needed to ensure the design is logical, I don’t think anybody can just walk in from out of the street and approve an AI design where lots of money is spent on materials only for the design to be wrong and work to come to a halt while it is re-designed. Most people will play it safe and still have architects who oversee the AI as any mistake could potentially collapse the company finances.
Gas and coal make the prices go up, not renewables. The failed part here only goes for the continued reliance on fossil fuels that keep us locked in an ever more expensive system of waste (67 % of the energy put into the system is wasted due to inherent inefficiencies) and extortion by OPEC cartels.
As someone who buys a lot of physical media, I can only hope that this will deepen the Interest in owning discrete publications of written and recorded work by humans. Yes my favorite artists can be copied, but if they record, publish, and print physical objects like vinyl albums, CDs, books, zines, etc, then I can be sure I’m supporting a human artist for their labor. Whether they use AI in the production process is their choice, and it’s my choice to put my money elsewhere if they do. I hope physical media continues to thrive.
Interesting side note, Bandcamp has recently issued a policy to this effect, which I applaud. Even if they are owned by a conglomo now.
The price of fossils is artificially increased by the eco-loonies to boost their “green” energy. CO2 taxes, renewable energy subsidizing… this is purposefully increasing fossil prices and is used to make renewables cheaper/profitable. Its always amazing to see what brainrot the eco-propaganda is causing.
I did a google AI on this;
Renewables Advantage: Onshore wind is currently the most affordable source of new electricity globally with a levelised cost of energy (LCOE) of $34 per MWh, followed closely by utility-scale solar at $43 per MWh.
Fossil Fuel Costs: LCOE estimates for coal range from $69 to $169 per MWh, while natural gas ranges from $110 to $228 per MWh.
Mining for natural Gas or coal will always be more expensive than Eco methods simply because more effort it is required to produce it. Wind and solar/kinetic is already available and a device is needed to harness the energy. Nothing is ever going to be cheaper than using a waterfall’s kinetic energy for example.
More money is then needed to recycle/dispose of oil once it is used.
The prices for fossil fuels are steadily increased to reflect their societal and environmental costs that were not priced into their usage for far too long. Only “fossil-loonies” object against that.
On top of that comes the incredible wastefulness of fossil fuels compared to renewable power and energy simply because the laws of thermodynamics make them incredibly inefficient. We waste around 2/3rd of the money spent on fossil fuels for unusable energy. Only “fossil-loonies” think this is a great thing to do.
On the topic of cost, it’s also only the “fossil-loonies” who think that, for instance, Netzentgelte wouldn’t increase without or less renewables. The reality is that they would go up as well because we need to turn the entire society and economy over from wasteful fossil fuel consumption to much more efficient electricity processes. For that, the grids on all levels need to be expanded and empowered on a massive scale. On top of that come incredibly expensive power plants and every year at least 80B€ (which would go up considerably if we wouldn’t use renewables) in expenses for buying fossil fuels. Only “fossil-loonies” consider this a good deal.+
And with regards to taxation:
Europe is not taxing fossil fuels as much and thoroughly as it does electricity. Naturally, only “fossil-loonies” consider this fair and appropriate.
Plus, you are intentionally looking at an old picture as the EEG was largely removed from the picture after 2020 and completely shut down in 2023. Only “fossil-loonies” would “accidentally” overlook this fact.
It’s always amazing to see what brainrot the fossil-loonie-toons-propaganda is causing.
“I did a woke biased AI on this and ate it with zero sources given, because i can’t think for myself.”
Stop humiliating yourself. Please.
Yeah, because AI could write something as coherent as I did. How about you amuse me more with your own AI slop (old and outdated “sources” are a hallmark of AI usage, by the way)? I am partial to arguments that lead no-where because fact-based ideology vs fantasy-football-ideologies knows no only one winner and means lots of entertainment.
Conspiracy Theory IV
Resistance to facts V
Do you even read the crap you write? 
Get well soon!
