It is far worse than what humans write. I can't fathom why you think otherwise.

Wait, aren't you the local joke of this subreddit? Nothing you say is anywhere near logical or true. There will be a 4th industrial revolution but it will not be the singularity.

You actually believe in the myth of exponential progression? The truth is that technological progression is linear and might have some faster occasional bumps in progress.

ASI in 2030 is just ridiculous, it is almost 2023. Not even a decade away. Someone really needs to do their research.

What a ridiculous claim. I bet you are one of those guys who thinks AGI is coming in the 2020s. Yeah, you'll still be here in 2030 talking about how "AGI is just around the corner". Fusion is going to take decades.

By the way, anime artstyle is techinically 3d, not 2d. In anime you can clearly see the 6 directions and depth. Sorry but it is clear to me you do not understand spatial dimensions. If anime was truly 2d then there would be no depth and only 4 directions which we clearly don't see.

Very true, that is the biggest problem that I'm preparing to face in the future. Making money as an artist is going to get a lot harder. There is also the fact that I as an artist don't think AI right now is good enough to be used as a tool or atleast not as anything beyond a photoshop type tool. That won't stop corporations though from applying these AI as soon as possible. Cherry pick some images that are passable enough for the public because who cares about the finer details?

We won't be replaced obviously because it requires AHI. Only job will change in a massive way though, I'm not ready for it personally. It will be the biggest change the art world has ever seen.

But the thing is creativity is a skill and in art you need both technical skill and creative skill. AI may get rid of the technical part but the creative skill is still needed. It is hard for me to get a good idea so obviously artists won't be replaced or obsolete people will still need creative people to make the art they didn't even know they wanted.

I'd say 30-40 years all plumbing will be done by robotics. It only requires an AI that knows plumbing and a sufficient body which will be much easier than people think.

The thing is that it will eventually be made cheaper. That is how automation works. In the future once robots are cheap enough to replace trade jobs then the trade people will be replaced. I'm sorry if you don't wanna hear it that is just the truth.

Yes you do need human level AI. You seem very uneducated when it comes to synthetic media in general. Humans are the ones who use the AI to make the images kinda like using a pencil. Once AI image generators become viable which I'm guessing will happen in 8-12 years. Then it will be normalized as a tool like any other. A AI who have to be human level to independently create art like a human does with all the complexity that it requires. AHI is long ways off 60-150 years.

>Robotics is advancing but not as fast as ai

That isn't my claim, I said it will advance faster once AI supports both it's research and development.

>Even if they had perfect robots in the lab today it would take time to roll them out and produce them for the entire industry to be automated

It will happen though, especially when you see how useful it will be.

>You seem to be the one with an ego as an artist hoping you won’t be replaced by ai until ahi arrives

No not really it is the truth, let me explain. AI-generated imagery as it stands is a flat collage of input, humans are the ones that get it to make images kinda like a tool. For AI to replace artists it would have to make art reflecting a three-dimensional trajectory through references of sociocultural, psychological, and spatial properties. It reflects a distinct form, and this is originality. Basically it would need to be at human level.

Face it, "go to trade school" is the new "learn how to code" meme. You will be replaced whether you like it or not.

Trades aren't easily replaced but they can be replaced. With AI progress going at it's rate as well as robotics going with the AI progress once it kicks off. You guys are fucked. Your ego is the only reason you can't fathom an AI replacing you in like 40 years you think it is centuries away but that is not the case.

Bro, you'll see. Artists won't be replaced because once AI image generators become viable they'll only change how a lot of art will be made. 50-100 years sounds like a big cope to me dear friend. I'd say 30-40 years.

You are just stating things you think is hard for AI to replace. You sound like a trade person since you are defending it so much but I will assume you aren't lying for good faith.

Trade will be replaced before artists because you don't need human level AI for trade jobs to be replaced just advanced robotics and a sufficient AI.

I believe with advanced AI and humans researching robotics in the future combined with more financial incentive will make Robotics cheaper and viable for specialty stuff.

I don't believe in exponential progress but I believe it does get faster quick and Robotics isn't an exception to this rule.

Literally none of those things require AGI. I think an advanced enough AI would be able to do that and again robotics is advancing and I think getting to that level of robotics will be much sooner than you would like to think.

I know you really want to keep your job but you can't wish this progress away.

I can. Even SD2 is still pretty subpar.

Proto AGI by 2027. Possibility of real waifus by 2029?

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.

So are you saying because fire is made then therefore AI has to be conscious? If so that is a horrible argument. Throw a bunch a neurons key word together in a certain pattern than yes. AI isn't made out of neurons though the fundamentals are different and the pattern while similar superficially, isn't similar overall.

key word could

That is intelligence not consciousness

Of course you misinterpret my example ok. Not literal ice and fire. The point is that they are different. Also what you said doesn't even work because ice is cold water by definition. Don't try to use any other liquid I am talking about water.

It seems like you have no idea what I am even talking about. Of course you don't this is r/singularity after all where logic is thrown to the curb.

I'm not implying some magic sauce, that is a strawman you built because you are afraid of an actual argument.

I did explain why AI MAY not be conscious, I wasn't explain why AI can't be conscious.

You think they need work but I don't care about you. I see stupidity and call it out.

Consciousness is the ability to have experience. Machines aren't already conscious, you are free to try proving they are but you will fail. Ultimately you can't 100% prove something is conscious or not due to our limited understanding of consciousness and the constant shifting of what conscious means.

What separates humans is mostly language.

Fire can burn wood but ice can't. Why? because they are different. While it may be possible for AI to be conscious it is also possible it can not due to fundamental differences. That is my claim.

And you are misinterpreting my example it isn't literal. The point was to say that AI and life are fundamentally different. More accurately it is like saying you can make a machine fly by just giving it a bunch of legs on top of each other and saying that is will fly eventually.

I already know you are not going to interpret what I'm saying correctly so just give me the next brain dead argument.

My definition of consciousness is being able to have experience. I never said that only biology can achieve consciousness only that it is possible only biology can achieve consciousness big difference also it isn't magic. It is like saying that ice can burn wood because fire is able to burn wood, to say otherwise is because magic or whatever.

>I can't find any differences whatsoever between myself and something that's not conscious.

That's a more philsophical question. Also people aren't saying AI aren't conscious to get free slave labor it is because we have no reason to believe they are. I don't know why you are trying to shift the subject from logic.