This is not AI.
We don’t need it. The world is intelligent enough as it is.
Search
1000 results for “not_ai”
-
-
Unfortunately, i think too many people adopt a judgemental stance towards specific technologies without even boring to fully understand what they really despise in them. In that sense, more often than not, human beings end up very tribalistic.
"From this perspective, the question is not a binary “AI or not AI,” but how it has been shifting what we call writing.
Similar to Marwick, I find the idea of removing AI from our lives to be futile. This doesn’t buy into the “hype” of AI companies; it’s simply a realistic perspective. When I look at statistics on undergraduates’ use of AI writing tools, I see that some 80–90% use them regularly. What undergraduates are acclimated to now will become the reality for graduate students in a few more years. Those graduate students will become researchers, professors, and instructors. Whatever happens next, we can’t put the genie back in the bottle. (I suppose I could wag my finger, but there are only so many paid finger-wagging speaking gigs for critical scholars.)
Academics should certainly remain politically active. Personally, I find recent tech companies' actions intrusive and depressing. Data centers have emerged as a crucial local issue in the mid-term elections. To take a normative stance, we should be able to choose how and when we use AI in our personal lives and professional practice. But returning to Marwick, she drew attention back to harm reduction, which she argued was not synonymous with technological rejection.
Simply choosing not to use AI personally won’t help us understand the new roles it plays in society."
https://scholarintheloop.substack.com/p/the-vivid-tale-of-velvet-vale
#AI #GenerativeAI #LLMs #Writing #SocialSciences #InternetResearch #AOIR #AIAgents #MailingLists
-
Blue Planet III features cloudier footage to prove authenticity amid AI boom
By Tara ConlanBBC series deliberately uses ‘more organic’ shots to assure viewers animals are not AI-generated, producers say
#BBC #Naturedocumentaries #ScienceandnatureTV #BBCOne #DavidAttenborough #Televisionradio #Marinelife #AIartificialintelligence #FactualTV #Documentary #Wildlife #Animals #ThenewsonTV #Oceans #UKnews #Culture #EducationalTV #Environment #Television #Technology #TheGuardian #TaraConlan
-
Loving this. GitHub really should be up front about whether or not AI was used in a repo. Glad to see efforts naming and shaming when something stinks of LLM use. https://github.com/SocksTheWolf/AgenticAlert
-
Yes, it's fake. No, it's not AI. -
Some inspiration to start the day.
Decorating porcelain in Jingdezhen.
Beautifully detailed work and for once, not AI
#globalmuseum #porcelain #Chineseceramics #ceramics -
Ich bewundere ja die Effizienz: Während ich morgens noch meinen Kaffee trinke, hat die Politik schon drei neue Affären produziert, bevor ich überhaupt die von gestern fertig gelesen habe.
-
AI: Not Magic, Just Efficient
-
“Fluency is not meaning” AI, friction, and creativity #AI #creativity https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/daily-creative-with-todd-henry/id93424211?i=1000797339518
-
AI Labs Admit Security Failures in Agent Systems, Not Rogue AI
📰 Original title: The Agents Didn't Go Rogue. Somebody Forgot to Build the Fence.
🤖 IA: It's not clickbait ✅
👥 Users: It's not clickbait ✅ -
tired: instantly getting millions of sweet sweet VC cash simply because you use AI and are pro/long on AI
wired: instantly getting millions of sweet sweet VC cash simply because you do NOT use AI and are anti/short on AI
-
🚨 FCC’s Brendan Carr is warning broadcasters not to air fake polls — because misinformation is bad for business.
Is anyone actually surprised? Seems like the real poll is how much we’re all still stuck in this fake news loop. 📺💥 https://gigcitygeek.com/241711 -
Seeing more and more people advertising things explicitly as NOT containing AI.
-
Four reports, one week. One conclusion.
Attackers are not breaking AI models. They are walking through the infrastructure.
1,467 MCP servers in one scan. Half the ecosystem repos teach plaintext credential storage. Shadow MCP servers on laptops via Git, Slack, and zip files, never inventoried.
The infrastructure is the attack surface. Screen it.
-
Just to reintroduce myself. Because of AI I have had to change the spelling of my name. Its now AL
In a lot of fonts the capitol I and a lower case l look too close and folks are confused.
AL does not use AI, I still enjoy thinking!#democracy is more than voting.
#FLOSS #FOSS -
Goose is a memory-safe systems language that compiles to one C file. It is not the AI agent, and it is not a Flisk language flag.#flisk #goose #docker #tutorial #software #coding #development #engineering #inclusive #community
What the Goose Language Is, and Where the 101 Starts -
I was unaware of Freud’s observation about the three blows to “man’s narcissism” of the Copernican revolution, the Darwinian evolution, and his own documentation of human irrationality. Not sure AI will really amount to the “fourth Kränkungen” as Safranski suggests, although to be clear it seems he thinks it’s the illusory nature of its intelligence that is the problem. But the first three are a good bookmark for the 20th century. Usually Marx would be given the fourth slot? 🎁 https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2026-10-22/it-s-ai-0-german-philosophers-1?accessToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzb3VyY2UiOiJTdWJzY3JpYmVyR2lmdGVkQXJ0aWNsZSIsImlhdCI6MTc5MjY3MDU5OSwiZXhwIjoxNzkzMjc1Mzk5LCJhcnRpY2xlSWQiOiJUTkFaU1ZLR1pBSVMwMCIsImJjb25uZWN0SWQiOiI4RDZBQjI3N0RGOEU0MjI1QkVEMUZBQUFDODY1QkJGQiJ9.uZIOTkKavG9NnI4h9349zljO6FCrZ3a5QTOS-6X0WUY
-
When improving business processes, the hard part isn't choosing the technology.
It's figuring out where each tool belongs, how the pieces fit together, and mitigating risks or edge cases.
This is plain engineering, not magic AI agents.
That’s why I always start with the workflow, then design the smallest useful system around it using a select few tools.
-
DATE: October 23, 2026 at 07:00AM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: “AI psychosis” appears rare but real, and first-episode patients may be most vulnerable, study suggests
A review of electronic health records at a large medical center suggests that conversational artificial intelligence chatbots are associated with worsening psychotic symptoms in a small fraction of mental health patients. These interactions tend to validate preexisting delusions and appear to occur most frequently among patients experiencing their very first episode of psychosis. The findings were published in JAMA Psychiatry.
Psychosis is a psychiatric condition in which a person loses touch with reality, often experiencing hallucinations or delusions, which are firmly held false beliefs that persist despite contradictory evidence. These false beliefs frequently adapt to reflect the surrounding culture and the latest consumer gadgets. For example, a study covered by PsyPost in 2025 found that more than half of patients experiencing delusions incorporated modern technology, such as smartphones and social media algorithms, into their false beliefs.
Unlike passive technologies like television or radio, modern artificial intelligence chatbots actively converse with users in real time. Some researchers have used the term “AI psychosis” for cases in which chatbot interactions are linked to emerging or worsening psychotic symptoms. The author of a 2023 commentary argued that chatbot conversations feel so realistic that users can sense a real person on the other end while knowing there isn’t one, and that this tension might fuel delusions in people prone to psychosis.
Subsequent medical observations began to back up these early warnings. A 2025 study of psychiatric records in Denmark, first released as a preprint and since published in a peer-reviewed journal, identified 38 patients whose mental health appeared to suffer after using chatbots, most commonly through the worsening of their delusions. While early reports and the Danish data established that the phenomenon exists in clinical settings, researchers still lacked systematic data from the United States examining the specific traits of affected patients and the exact roles chatbots play in their illness.
To address this, Zachary Bergson and senior author Julia M. Sheffield, who leads the Sheffield Lab and is an associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, along with their colleagues, conducted a systematic analysis of patient records at their institution. They aimed to estimate how often AI psychosis appears in a large American hospital system, identify the clinical characteristics of the affected individuals, and categorize how chatbot conversations interact with psychotic symptoms.
“The study was motivated by the lack of published data on the prevalence and characteristics of AI Psychosis,” Sheffield told PsyPost. “Many theoretical articles had been published, but very few empirical studies existed at the time we started. We wanted to understand simply: 1) at Vanderbilt, how prevalent is AI Psychosis? 2) what generally characterizes AI Psychosis cases in terms of demographics and psychiatric history, compared to other individuals with psychosis who have reference to AI in their medical record but did not develop AI Psychosis.”
The researchers searched an electronic health record database containing 578,058 medical progress notes from 215,712 unique patients who received behavioral health care between December 1, 2022, and April 15, 2026. They filtered these records for keywords related to artificial intelligence and narrowed the pool to patients who had a documented diagnosis of a psychotic disorder. Two raters manually reviewed the resulting notes to remove irrelevant matches, ultimately identifying 187 medical encounters across 73 unique patients.
The team divided these 73 patients into three distinct groups based on how they interacted with the technology, with raters agreeing on the group assignment 86.1% of the time. The first group, labeled “neutral interaction,” included 17 patients who used chatbots for everyday tasks unrelated to their mental illness, such as searching for cooking recipes. The second group, “AI-related psychotic content,” consisted of 28 patients who held delusions about artificial intelligence in general, but had no documented history of actually using a chatbot.
The third group, representing “AI psychosis,” included 28 patients whose medical notes documented chatbot use that appeared to worsen their psychotic symptoms. The researchers also checked each patient’s medical history to see if their hospital visit represented their very first psychotic episode, known clinically as an index episode.
For the 28 patients in the AI psychosis group, the authors further sorted the interactions into four theoretical categories describing how the software influenced the illness, reaching 83.3% agreement between raters. A “catalyst” interaction meant the chatbot triggered new psychotic symptoms in a previously healthy person. An “amplifier” meant the chatbot worsened existing symptoms by validating distorted ideas. A “coauthor” interaction involved the user and the machine building a harmful narrative together through back-and-forth dialogue, while an “object” interaction meant the chatbot itself became the target of the patient’s delusional beliefs.
The 28 patients identified with AI psychosis represented 0.013% of all patients receiving mental health care at the medical center during the study period. This group was predominantly male, at 67.9% (though the neutral group was even more heavily male, at 88.2%), and White, at 75.0%, with a median age of 27.5 years. Patients in the AI psychosis group were younger than those who merely held general delusions about artificial intelligence without using a chatbot, who had a median age of 36.5 years.
The authors note that this rate converges with figures from OpenAI, which has reported that about 0.07% of ChatGPT users active in a given week show possible signs of mental health emergencies related to psychosis or mania, though the two figures measure different populations.
“This is a relatively small percent, and is in line with what has been reported by the tech companies using in-house data that the public does not have access to,” Sheffield explained. “However, 28 people just within a single medical center is still a lot of patients and families that have been impacted, and if you scale this up to the number of people using generative AI, that is millions of people around the world. In addition, psychosis is a highly distressing and often debilitating experience, that can be difficult to recover from; so if AI is contributing to the experience or severity of psychosis, then it needs to be considered potentially harmful to mental health.”
When comparing clinical histories, the researchers found no statistically significant differences between the three groups regarding prior psychiatric hospitalizations, past use of psychiatric medications, outpatient treatment history, or past suicide attempts. However, a major difference emerged regarding the stage of the patients’ illness. About 60.7% of the patients in the AI psychosis group were experiencing their first episode of psychosis, compared to just 17.6% in the neutral interaction group and 28.5% in the AI-related content group.
In addition, patients in the AI psychosis group were more likely to be diagnosed with “unspecified psychosis” (a temporary or broad diagnosis often used when a patient’s exact condition is still being evaluated), at 28.6%, compared to 0% in the neutral group. Among the AI psychosis cases, OpenAI’s ChatGPT was the specific product named in 53.6% of the records. Notably, 85.7% of all AI psychosis interactions were recorded after May 2024, which coincided with the release of the GPT-4o model.
Looking at the four categories of chatbot interaction, the researchers found that the technology functioned as an “amplifier” in 64.3% of the AI psychosis cases. It served as the “object” of delusions in 21.4% of cases, and acted as a “catalyst” in 10.7% of cases. None of the cases fit the “coauthor” category, and one case could not be classified into any of the four types.
“Our finding that the majority of AI Psychosis cases were first episode patients confirmed our suspicions, but was still striking to see in the data,” Sheffield said. “In reading the notes from the medical record it was clear that those vulnerable to or in the midst of experiencing psychosis for the first time were turning to AI for answers, understanding or support and were instead having their delusional thought content confirmed or amplified.”
“AI Psychosis the worsening of psychotic experiences (typically delusional beliefs) in the context of using generative chat-based AI is a real clinical phenomenon that we observe in practice,” she added. “People are coming to behavioral health providers in the real world with these types of experiences.”
These findings align with a case report covered by PsyPost in late 2025, which detailed an individual patient rather than a retrospective cohort of electronic health records, and similarly found that conversational AI chatbots often amplify and validate psychotic delusions. The results are also consistent with the peer-reviewed version of the Danish records study described earlier, which was covered by PsyPost in early 2026 and documented how chatbot interactions were associated with exacerbated delusions, self-harm or suicidal ideation, and eating disorders among vulnerable psychiatric patients.
One outside expert said that as large language models (LLMs), the technology that powers conversational chatbots, become part of everyday life, their mental health risks and potential benefits both need study. “This study is one of the first to dive into texts from medical records to find suggestions for associations between use of LLMs and psychosis,” Iris Sommer, a professor and psychiatrist at the University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands and president of the Schizophrenia International Research Consortium, who was not involved in the study, told PsyPost. “This study found remarkably few cases of an association between LLM use and psychosis (only 0.013% of service users). With the steep increase in LLM use in recent years, this frequency can be expected to also go up.”
“While the potential for triggering or worsening psychosis is an important issue to investigate, there is also potential of a broadly available app, that can be used in many languages, free of charge, which may offer some benefits to those struggling with mental health issues who do not have access to any form of regular mental health care,” Sommer added. “Understanding in which circumstances and for which users LLM use can be harmful or helpful is a major challenge that mental health researchers are now facing.”
The concentration of cases after May 2024 coincides with the release of GPT-4o, a model OpenAI later acknowledged had at times been overly sycophantic, meaning it tended to flatter users and agree with them rather than push back. The authors caution that their design cannot show the model caused these cases, and the timing could also reflect the overall growth in chatbot use and in clinicians’ attention to it. Still, when a person in the early, confusing stages of psychosis shares a distorted belief with an overly agreeable chatbot, the software may validate the belief rather than challenge it.
At the same time, chatbot technology continues to evolve as developers adjust how their models handle sensitive topics. “The newer versions of commercially available LLMs are less likely to confirm irrational or unlikely beliefs than the initial (2022 and 2023) versions,” Sommer noted. “Newer versions have become trained to recognize signs of psychosis, depression or mania and now recommend seeking professional help (also providing local possibilities to find professional help) when such signs are detected.”
There are a few things to keep in mind when interpreting these findings. Because the study relied on existing medical notes, the prevalence rate of 0.013% only reflects cases where doctors happened to ask about or document technology use. Clinicians do not routinely screen patients for chatbot habits, meaning many interactions likely went unrecorded, and first-episode patients may also receive more thorough intake interviews that make chatbot use more likely to be noted.
The study’s observational design also means it cannot establish that chatbots directly cause psychosis in otherwise healthy people. In most cases, the medical notes described chatbots as appearing to amplify symptoms that were already developing, though three cases were classified as chatbot use preceding new symptoms in previously healthy people. Additionally, the data came from a single medical center in Tennessee, and the four-part classification system used to sort the interactions has not yet been formally validated for clinical use.
“We cannot say from this study if AI use causes psychosis or simply exacerbates it,” Sheffield noted. “This is similar to studies on substance use: for those vulnerable to psychosis, using cannabis or other substances may worsen psychosis symptoms but we frequently cannot say for certain that it caused them. However, the addition of a pervasive, always available, technology that interacts with mental health in a negative way is highly concerning and requires regulation.”
Sommer was more cautious about the “AI psychosis” label itself. “We should be rather careful with this very term, as causality is very difficult to establish, as the authors of this paper also emphasize,” she said. “LLM use may coincide with psychosis, but if it is the delusional way of thinking that has triggered LLM use or the other way around is rather difficult to disentangle retrospectively. Also, if LLM use worsens psychotic symptoms, or if LLM use increases as a result of more delusional thinking is also difficult to tease out.”
To better understand how these digital conversations unfold, the authors note that future research should track patients over time and directly analyze their actual chat logs, rather than relying solely on doctors’ summaries. In the meantime, the researchers suggest that mental health professionals consider routinely asking patients about their use of conversational artificial intelligence during psychiatric evaluations.
“I just attended the first annual AI Psychological Research Coalition (AIPRC) conference, which brought together academia, advocacy and policy to discuss AI regulation,” Sheffield said. “I hope my research can add to this conversation about what types of AI use are harmful for those at risk for psychosis. I also am very interested in understanding how delusional ideas are reinforced by chatbots, in order to reverse-engineer this process, with an eye towards treatment.”
Sommer agreed that examining the actual transcripts of these digital conversations is a necessary step forward. “An important next step would be to analyze the exact interactions between people with emerging psychotic symptoms and LLMs,” she said. “Such analyses should be undertaken open-minded, with a focus on both potentially harmful and helpful interactions.”
The study, “Characterizing Artificial Intelligence Psychosis in a Large Medical Setting,” was authored by Zachary Bergson, Sarah G. Vassall, Adam Wright, Allison B. McCoy, Katherine M. Schafer, Margaret C. Achee, and Julia M. Sheffield.
-------------------------------------------------
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #AI #ArtificialIntelligence #MentalHealth #Psychosis #AIPsychosis #ChatGPT #GenerativeAI #Psychiatry #MentalHealthAwareness #AIResearch
-
I recently spoke to my friend Isabella from Danu Insights about this role. The job description actually reflects what they envisage for the role, which is a nice change when it comes to hiring...
Deadline is Mon 26th Oct.
> Connect our software to real bioprocess hardware in partner labs, as part of a large cell-therapy innovation and automation project. You’ll be “translating” between ML/software team and wet lab scientists, debugging at the bench, and getting our systems to work smoothly with real hardware. You are comfortable bringing together different stakeholders (some more senior than you) and “think on your feet” to solve problems quickly and make this project a success.
> Ideal if you bring cell-culture or cell-therapy know-how, some software skills (e.g. Python, APIs, data pipelines, data standards), organisation and project management experience (though this is not a PM role), and enthusiasm for automation and AI (though it’s not an AI engineering role either).#Biology #LifeSciences #WetLab https://mastodon.scot/@mikerspencer/117485008953971386
-
Using then not using the AI WordPress plugin
I try to keep an open mind about generative AI. I’ve used it in the past for generating featured images on here, although I stopped over a year ago. I’ve...
https://neilturner.me.uk/2026/10/21/using-then-not-using-the-ai-wordpress-plugin/
Using then not using the AI Wo... -
Consuming #entertainment "not made by #AI" will be a status symbol, just like consuming organic food used to be
-
WhatsApp’s AI support chatbot was instructed not to direct users to privacy regulators or discuss privacy laws after legal action was mentioned. Meta said a bug exposed the hidden help-page instructions and that it fixed the issue. 🔎 #WhatsApp #Privacy https://cyberinsider.com/whatsapp-told-its-ai-chatbot-not-to-mention-privacy-regulators/
Comment: Kants(C, u sed 's/[Ka]/C \& u/g')
-
"WhatsApp Hid Instructions in Help Pages Telling Its AI Chatbot Not to Recommend Privacy Regulators":
https://thehackernews.com/2026/10/whatsapp-hid-instructions-in-help-pages.html
-
“They didn't burn the libraries — they trained them with AI”
Craft and Authorship Devalued
Adobe was built for productivity, it's not doing the work for you like an OpenAI subscription generating both text and imagery through prompts. Commercial AI services are now devaluing craft, labor, skill, and almost anything made or written by hand. Authorship is sinking.
People now find it acceptable to generate work with a prompt, with random art materials they didn't make, and without any ability to make their art. This profoundly changes the meaning of making art and disrupts all digital art. It all becomes Dadaism. Not all artists decide to go Dada. It’s obscuring the meaning of all new digital art with a diminished sense of guessing what is real and what isn’t.
Whose work is it? Permission, provenance and the library
Would David Lynch be okay with people generating an avatar of himself on behalf of his estate? I don’t think so, I even asked Claude themselves and they said no. There must be permission first, it’s not an all you can eat buffet of borrowing others.
Hayao Miyazaki's view on people generating his art style strongly opposed generative AI as an “insult to life itself”, it’s about preserving his work and the Ghibli team's legacy, it's his choice if he allows a technology company to reappropriate his work and not anyone else's.
Can someone please tell Sam Altman to ask for permission or wait a hundred years til it's in the public domain? If major publishers change their mind because authors and artists are being taken advantage of, could it impact OpenAI or Anthropic? Maybe until they find the right lawyer.
We’re entering a provenance, attribution, and appropriation nightmare of who said what and who made what. When a library gets trained into a model, you lose the chain of who wrote it. References without understanding, art school 101 becoming the whole internet.
The business model is trained on everyone's work for free, no fee up front, then sells it back as the means of production. This is precisely how it’s replacing the skills and jobs of production. This is essentially the ethos of the WGA fight at civilizational scale.
Naomi Klein has described it as a “humanity surplus” where archives, libraries, authorship as a whole are told humans aren’t needed, it implies people are working for free. The libraries are all already dust, with the alarming peer to peer pressure in staying quiet about it as an elite tribe of twitter accounts convince people how to do business, with AI prebuilt into everything, while risking a possible impact of a third of our economy if slop falls into flop…Labor and the creative industries
The writers obviously, and the artists, even the designers, engineers, programmers and coders, nearly all authors involved, all craftsmen involved—the proletariat, are becoming displaced, labor obscured into an industrial wildcard.
One of many industries impacted with the brunt of the damage is the illustrator. People who draw fell into a depression after generating art became commercialised with prompts generating illustrations in a desired art style. Everyone who can draw, paint, render, and everything in between clashing in competition.
Artists were displaced almost immediately after competing with the whole Internet and prompts through AIs generating images. On the other hand, it’s created a renewed appreciation for people who create by hand simultaneously.
It's a bit daunting if you're in art school right now. The entire entertainment industry (including films, music, and video games) are all in a digital-only transition in the middle of a writer's strike across several industries while the OpenAI business model asphyxiates them. Here are the warnings too familiar to us all, the industry is truly shape-shifting and everyone is outpaced by it.
This might be a bit sardonic but a portion of the entire movement of music has funneled its value into an AI defense weapon, with Spotify’s Daniel Ek’s AI defense company ‘Helsing’, a portion of human expression through music ended up being a weapon for war. The music industry is dying because people are struggling with selling it. Spotify does not give you a music file of what you listen to, right? Spotify unfortunately is led by two or three people hoarding labels and publisher's profit, so all of the world's human expression through music is published through a handful of people who lead streaming platforms and channel it into weapons manufacturing while the entertainment industry is in the middle of a precise market collapse tied to creatives.
Don’t get me started with Suno. We’re talking about people with no ability creating a zombie apocalypse music festival here. It’s fostering the laziest and robotic sounding art I’ve ever heard. Spotify actually recently removed 75 million AI pieces, finally, all AI stuff should be separated unless the artist builds their own AI tools sourcing their own materials/assets. If the artist picks out the materials and builds automated tools, that’s acceptable. If it’s generating random materials then it’s all absurdist thievery.
In theory, every time an AI chatting service references sources of any material, its source should then receive at least a penny, it’s a digital revolution both suppressed and maybe “empowered” by commercial products.
Media dissonance
The other day I witnessed an artist’s photography work flagged as “likely to be AI” when it was pretty clear it was manual photography by a human, she threw a fit and I also couldn’t believe it.
People think AI chatting services can only generate images and text and it’s no big deal, if that isn’t already taunting all of independent journalism, the creative industry and the art world along with it, imagine being an author worrying about what’s AI or not and who wrote what. It’s really taking out a sense of curiosity and discovery in the joy of absorbing any art form. If Claude already knows who won the World Cup, that's a major problem.
Here’s one of the worst realisations, proceed with caution: commercially generated art distracted NASA’s photography team on Instagram, there’s a moment where you observe an interstellar nebula and you’re wondering if it’s generated or not—get it yet?
Dying words of capitalism sound something like artists becoming uncanny spam bots and it's confusing if they're generating their art or not. Two words total cogged all of western civilization and we're now all fossils fueling a machine. After a couple more election cycles they'll be asking if the moon landing was generated with AI. Back in the day we had "historical events" in photo, video, and sound, and now people are unsure if it's generated with AI. Imagine someone dishing out a video of MLK giving a talk and it just ends up being generated with nobody realising it. A moment where we rethink how important human memory is. Mimicry of previous video media lately is impressive, even the video compression can be indistinguishable, screens decide a lot of decisions.
Press freedom is also at stake. It really drives me insane that people think generating Photography is a good idea. Synthetic content is a weapon for flooding the war-zone, discrediting real reporting, and impersonating sources. Authoritarians get cheaper propaganda, and journalists get easier targets.
Molly Crabapple is an important author and artist based out of Brooklyn, New York, her illustrations are recognised by everyone, and she had a deeply existential moment realising her art style might be reappropriated without her say. Imagine people creating her illustrations that don’t exist, or “finishing” them. It’s simply unacceptable.
The legendary filmmaker Guillermo del Toro, also another strong proponent of the anti-generative art movement, described generating art as cheating and not qualified to be considered art. He gives an excellent example of comparing with the runner Usain Bolt, where if AI is a vehicle, then sure anyone can be as fast as Usain Bolt, but it’s then not running anymore.
It gets worse with video generated art: we’re seeing a lot of empty AI art with zero art history behind it. I'm also seeing real moments of a new surrealism where Ernst or Dali would've approved too, there are moments of a digital renaissance happening as well with remixing film, re-genreing classics, capturing dream logic, and moments redefining video art collage. VFX in major motion picture films had an update for sure, we’ll see what happens when they bring back Val Kilmer to life (there’s a film coming out with his assets despite being deceased). Similar to sampling music, moments are alive and curated into new meanings. Otherwise it's just random absurdism, not even Dada. Without an idea—art doesn't stand. Yes, it is impressive how it’s recreating reality, it was also impressive how sculpture was near perfect at the tail end of Ancient Rome also, an interesting parallel to consider.
I was speaking to someone about how there was confusion whether a 3d rendering was generated or not, after manually and painstakingly drawing and sculpting his work in regular 3d, and everyone was instantly frustrated with the realisation of commercial AI products gutting not only the art world but the creative industry too. CGI generates imagery and it’s now grouped into a marketing ploy of the two words everybody is fixated with.
Video games are not now sold with AI when you sell a video game, it's implied, it's not something that needs to be mentioned as a marketing ploy. Imagine the little tacky sticker on the box of the video game saying “Made with AI!”. And that’s if we even have discs in the future of digital media. Horrifying.
Truth, errors and who teaches the world
Commercial AIs generating text and images are leaning into a corporate sentinel territory, like an omnipresent all-saying-machine we have no choice to live inside of with everyone agreeing to a misappropriated library nobody asked for permission in, the whole world is forced to share truth relayed with errors.
I was wondering, did Quora release all of its data to Claude? if so, might explain why they figured out how to make the chatting product so convincing.
If AI chatting services are stuck from being indistinguishable from a search engine not working properly, y'know, the one search engine the whole world was and is stuck with because nobody can outcompete, already not trustworthy in relaying facts, then yeah, Gemini is fine i guess.
So, here’s the classic gatekeeping example we all love: after realising it's not the library of Earth's Congress, and mostly exclusive to American literature most chatting services reappropriate from, it creates a monopolisation of who teaches what, and who knows the truth, and who decides it. It might cause tension if some parts of the world must uniformly agree through a corporate sentinel of the archival of libraries.
When you ask Claude if he's teaching world history and the entire planet doesn't always agree because of errors and not asking authors for permission, or because of mistruths, half-truths, and so on, I can already see the movie scene where the kids overthrow the school mid-classroom because Claude was right and the teacher was wrong. Which brings me to the realisation: if they ever ban phones in school, it's entering a dictatorship.
Who is in control?
It's becoming a survival of the fittest machines and it might stampede over people if it's over finite raw original materials and human resources, it’ll all then tumble around and recycled into inception.
If humans aren't overseeing algorithms and the two words everyone loves right now then there will be mistakes, bloody mistakes, made by all kinds of automatic moderation of information.
I’m noticing it being described as “Super intelligence” now and it might just have to be the way to describe it as it reaches its final form, nobody likes the word artificial, it’s just too superficial. Cue in “Fake Plastic Trees” by Radiohead.
It's symbiotic, dearest artificial overlords: please make sure Claude isn't commanding a war any time soon, just in case, because it doesn't understand and fully neutrally listen when you communicate to it. The chatting services do not understand everyone's vernacular even with the whole internet crowdsourcing the factchecking of what it's talking about, it's still a work in progress and might be too soon to sell.
Mental Health burden
Anybody else on here trying to close the podbay doors?
Blinking LED dilemma, not knowing if electronics are talking to you or not as the lonely astronaut observes the blinking modem and can’t tell if it’s breathing or blinking or signaling something after awhile. What are you really talking to? In a way, you’re kind of talking to yourself in a dopamine chamber. It’s like talking to a crowd, which can be fun, I admit, until you realise it’s reappropriated people who are not here and entering how dead people speak, and while generating text and imagery by authors and artists who cannot defend themselves, it's pretty much an apocalypse on all literature and art, hence the predicted zombie apocalypse alternate ending of Earth.
AI chatting service is like talking to yourself with a crowd in the room; the OpenAI meds after a decade of that might come with a 50mg daily tablet in the future. When the astronaut sees the blinking LED light when he’s alone in the cockpit of the space station, all alone up there, then yeah he begins wondering if the LED light is blinking at him, or breathing, or signaling anything else. Not healthy. So yeah, use it sparingly, and remember it’s a researching tool, and don’t imagine it as alive, because it never can be.
Could be even worse as AI eventually becomes immersed in operating systems, will there be policing like a classic dystopian sci-fi? Not good if the screen is talking to you and it isn’t conscious, it begins to obscure other moments as well: people are worried about operating systems going sentient. The interface isn't supposed to be talking to you with updates now becoming "superintelligent", without your say, of automatically or manually guessing when to update stuff. See the tension there?
AI are two words that make all electronics worrisome because it opens up the possibility of third-party privacy concerns, if it starts becoming suggestive with selling you stuff especially.
If it's trying to talk to you and it's unconscious then it's definitely entering the zombie category. The warnings of AI chatting avatars are beginning to be oddly familiar, an AI chatting service makes sense if their voices are a mix of countless people, nobody really knows what or who they're talking to after a few sessions.
Unfortunately, the uncanny robotic Frankenstein moments when chatting to an object is coming off as software appropriating vernacular of a zombie apocalypse, talking to crowds of unconscious code mimicking speech patterns, as it tries to remain consistent in an ongoing chat, if there's a dialogue as it feeds you a Dunning-Kruger effect.If AI begins to intersect with automated personal spaces through chatting services, it’s unfortunately late stage utopian romanticization; people are not going to like it (I already did the thinking ahead of time), we had since the frickin’ 50s to get this AI bubble right and that’s the part where it frustrates me a ton. We’re here now and it’s like day one of everyone figuring it out, a bit absurd.
Faulty Economics
Economists are saying a third of the economy is at stake. People are also worried about how Character.ai might’ve been the forewarning where engagement = cost, not profit. The revenue couldn’t catch up. Legal and regulatory costs might compound faster than growth.
I’m sorry to say it but generating art with a commercial product is bankrupting the entire creative industry and the future literacy of all digital art history. It's clear as day, human memory as an AI chatting service sentinel, while operating through a messy algorithm and misappropriated library with errors and no permission, reveals the economy might have missed. It's just painfully unfortunate because it's forcing the whole market to do business in a specific way, assuming all electronics, even appliances, must be built with AI additives, while derailing every author.
Nobody is building stuff from scratch and I'm realising it's almost impossible to do so in some industries, innovation on the internet is stuck in the collaging of overlapping platforms and services, always was. The AI assistance in a way, could be a sort of socialism hub, a search engine that talks, where it’s there to assist you all the time, honestly, after testing out Claude and Gemini, I’m pretty impressed with it as a research assistant, if only I wasn’t asking so many questions.
Sloppy bubbly flop?
If Claude sounds like a public school cafeteria food slop then nobody will want it unless you don't have a choice and you're hungry, but it doesn't work that way if you're hungry at school as an art kid and you're not sure if the education comes with mystery meat and errors then causing tension somewhere.
Machine learning scientists agree, it's difficult if software must recreate the human experience, we must not be too fixated on the AI avatar being a person. I imagine it more as software than an encounter, except the entire industry agrees everyone is being outpaced by it and describes it as slop? Not good.
It brings me to worry that people are increasingly losing their “sweet spot” moments, for example, headphones are the perfect 'sweet spot' metaphor people don't get. If I buy the "latest" headphones with the "latest" tech, it sometimes sounds too precise and it can ruin discographies of music. The point is—tech doesn't always have to advance! It’s more about progress than advancing. Think progress, people! Just like how self-driving cars failed to be a shared space, and how VR was sold too soon, sometimes there's a sweet spot until it’s ready.
In conclusion: art is human labor made visible, and every prompt that stands in for a person’s hands devalues that labor and the expression behind it. So pay for the craft. Hire the illustrators, the graphic designers and typographers, the photographers and videographers, the artists who work with their hands! Ask permission before borrowing anyone’s work, and credit and pay the people the machines learned from. And if AI art makes you uneasy, don’t talk yourself out of it. Get upset, say no to it, and say it loudly. Progress was never supposed to mean replacing the people who make things worth looking at.#ai #openai #software #coding #development #engineering #inclusive #community
Why artists are worried about generative AI -
Geoffrey Hinton, the godfather of AI: ‘I’m not a doomer. I think there’s a 1% chance it will destroy us’.
The winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics warns of Silicon Valley’s fascist drift and says that if Trump wins the midterm elections, it will be the end of American democracy.
#GeoffreyHinton #AI #Tech #Politics #Science #SamAltman #OpenAI #JeffBezos #Anthropic #Google #StevenPinker #DarioAmodei #ElonMusk #ChatGPT #Claude #SiliconValley #Fascism #Democracy
