Yntec

> but just beautiful images, are not art.

But the definition of art can't depend on your knowledge of how was it made. I can show you two beautiful pictures and ask you if any of them is art, and you'd know I was trying to trick you. But you could pass a piece made by an AI as art if you didn't know how it was produced.

That's true. But the thing with technology, and the reason we've kept up with Moore's law is that someone eventually has a bright idea that leaves current methods and improvement extrapolation in the dust, and then the real thing happens earlier than the most optimistic dates, and performs better than what people expected. The question is not if one day an AI can generate a movie that you can't differentiate from a human-made movie. The question is how long will it take for an AI generated movie to be better than all the human-made movies in history, if it's possible at all it'll happen much sooner than people think possible.

Oh, nice take! Reminds me of the chess world, long time ago chess entities that could beat any human in the world have existed, people wouldn't play them because losing all the time was boring.

But then came the neural network chess engines (powered by the same training technology of text to images generators), which even people enjoyed playing for some time due to novelty and how they learned how to play from scratch (Alpha Zero, Lc0, et al.)

In the process to get there, we got networks of all kinds of strengths, you could find one exactly as strong as you, and its mistakes were like the mistakes you would make.

And yet, they were missing the "human factor", people would rather play against other humans online, some even willing to pay for accounts in places like playchess and chess.com to play other humans.

As the networks became stronger and then stockfish assimilated them to get the best of both worlds with NNUE, nobody cared and there was even an explosion of human vs. human chess (when twitch.tv and youtube stars were playing each other and the audience didn't even care how bad the chess was, it turned out that it held up as a great spectacle despite, or thanks to the stars being novices - and the race to get better at chess.)

Now chess bots are just a curiosity and only used by people without online access to other humans, I wonder if it'll be the same for art, and if "show your work" becomes a thing.

You can ask an AI to produce a great picture... now try asking it to make a video of you making that art from scratch and the creative process - the whole art section of twitch tv is about the artist's process, and yes, there'S some people that get enough from that to dedicate all their time to their art.

Please search for my reply on the "this is why you're here" case on this page for more info. Basically, I claim that to reach such conclusions you need an imaginary pedophile in your mind that gets aroused by the material (but not the entire thing, only the timestamp). Then, and only then, this product of fiction makes that context unmistakable.

In reality, I could have in my mind someone that gets aroused by... maraccas (I don't know, it's the most mundane thing I could think of). There's a maraccas video, and there's a comment with a timestamp that says "this is why you're here", so in my mind, there's this group of people that get aroused by maraccas and this comment is for them. The intent and context is clear. All this fabrication is not less real that yours.

Chances are there's a guy out there that actually matches the pedophile in your mind, however, they're not wasting their time clicking timestamps on youtube. If you research porn, people get adapted and need worse and worse things to "get on". The actual pedophile stopped being impressed by such timestamps content long time ago.

I don't really know what @2:33 is about, but let me take a guess and ask you: would you let actual children see the contents that appear @2:33? And if they did, would they be horrified? If you asked them to describe what was happening on @2:33, would they feel unfomfortable? Or would they give some innocent, mundane description?

This is a great test to see if something is dirty or if it's only dirty in your mind. If you have to create an imaginary pedophile in your mind that gets aroused by @2:33, and a whole group of them that are searching Youtube comments to find the timestamp for "what they're looking for", you have to wonder if you're not using some huge leap in logic to arrive to conclusions.

Ironically, what this video has shown is that Youtube's system works, as this guy, to make his video, had to go for what seems to be hours of research and after it, he shows the most shocking videos of little girls he was able to find. And there wasn't any nudity, or anything actually implicitly sexual shown. Everything was clean and every timestamp led to family-friendly content.

The "worst" thing I saw was the usage of the water emoji, and I'm like, really? People use the water emoji and suddenly you can be very detailed about their sexual orientation and why they timestamp videos or share them? All what is happening on these completely innocent videos could be explained in many ways, thinking the most likely explanation is "that's a pedophile" means the imaginary pedophile in your mind needs to be toned down.

My problem has been with people assuming a context, and an intent. I keep repeating myself, but a comment on a cat playing with yarn ball video linking to another cat playing with yarn ball video doesn't seem different to me than comment on a girl eating lollipop video linking to another girl eating a lollipop video.

These videos exist, people like to watch them, but I don't see people assuming the intent is for people that have some cat with yarnball fetish to share it with others that do, as the context. Nor were the children eating the lollipops intending for anything else than having fun. There's nothing wrong with either, other that people assuming why people upload videos, watch them, timestamp them, or share them.

You just won that bet.

Okay, can you reword that? What is wrong with kids doing squats? If nothing, then, what is wrong with timestamping kids doing squats?

The only thing I see wrong here is the sexualization, but it'd be us doing it if we assume the reason of the timestamp. Compare: Video of people playing soccer, someone adds a timestamp to a part when a guy passes the ball to another guy, would you think the timestamp was created because of sexual arousal and tell they need to see a psychiatrist? How is kid doing squats different?