Sashinii t1_iwasrga wrote on November 14, 2022 at 6:32 AM

Reply to comment by Mandamelon in AI Drew This Gorgeous Comic Series, But You'd Never Know It by rpaul9578

AI art and human art are equally as original.

Literally all jobs are going to become obsolete in the 2020's or the 2030's; AGI will accelerate progress in molecular nanotechnology research, leading to the creation of the nanofactory, which will enable post-scarcity.

red75prime t1_iwb4g33 wrote on November 14, 2022 at 9:18 AM

If you have 1 kW universal nanofactory, the minimum estimate of the amount of time to produce, say, a sturdy steel shovel (or a pound of rice for that matter) is around an hour (one erased bit per atom at Landauer limit at room temperature and no other energy expenditure). The more realistic time is probably around 1000-10000 hours or a month to a year. Diamondoid shovel will be lighter (and can be built faster), but there still are limits on how light it can be (and you can't make lightweight diamondoid food). Rice that costs 1 - 10 megawatt-hours per pound is hardly sustainable.

Universal nanofactories are quite energy hungry due to amount of computations and operations required to place individual atoms.

See part 8.2 of http://crnano.r30.net/Nanofactory.pdf for example.

So I think that universal nanofactories will supplement instead of replacing traditional manufacture methods.

Specialized nanofactories can be more efficient (e.g. biological processes), so a nanofactory that churns out rice at reasonable energy cost (less than megawatt-hour per pound) is realizable, but not so versatile, apparently.

I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but it seems you need access to a megawatt-class power source (that's around 140x140meters or 460x460feet of solar panels) to enjoy a universal nanofactory which is not painfully slow.

Atomic "lego block" factories will probably be a suitable compromise: higher speed, less prone to abuse (building toxins and poisons, for example).

Rumianti6 t1_iwreiv5 wrote on November 17, 2022 at 7:58 PM

You can't run from this, I will educate you. AI-generated imagery as it stands is a flat collage of input. Human artists also reproduce what is put into them. At this point I'd say they are the same, initially, but humans do it three-dimensionally. AI does it flat.

The human neural network is comparatively more detailed than AI as it stands currently, and human art reflects a three-dimensional trajectory through references of sociocultural, psychological, and spatial properties. It reflects a distinct form, and this is originality.

AI-generated art is inferior not because it is "merely" from an AI: they are qualitatively the same as us: but because it is one-dimensional replications of collages of actual originality.

I just dislike humans being elevated qua humans without dissecting that matter.

The truth is that AI art is no where near human art.