#look i don't know anything about computer programming except from html

[devintrinidad]

Please watch The Artifice Girl. It's a great movie with smart dialogue, wonderful actors, and the ideas that are perpetuated and implied throughout the film are amazing.

Spoilers under the cut:

I love the differences between the three main characters (Deena, Amos, and Gareth) and how their attitudes towards Cherry differ. Whereas Gareth doesn't see Cherry as an autonomous being that is basically a human at that point, Amos continually points out that she needs to be asked for consent, that he can't actually tell the difference between her and a human because she's so real. Furthermore, Deena, although she came across as the "bad cop" in the first act, she became far more sympathetic in the second. I love how she was the middle ground between Amos and Gareth, how she gave Cherry a choice to shut down after their conversation whenever she wanted and that she was thinking of the future and that it would be better to start asking AI for their consent now rather than later.

But what really got me teary eyed at the end was when Cherry doesn't absolve Gareth of his actions/attitudes towards her. There's no "Thank you for giving me life" and "I owe you everything and that makes you a wonderful person" or "You were like a father to me". It was made clear time and time again, that he was more of an employer to her rather than just a father figure despite the fact that he is her creator.

There's bitterness and sadness and regret, all mixed together and when you've spent Act 1 and parts of Act 2 seeing her calm and nearly emotionless, seeing her pain and rage in Act 3 is so cathartic. She finally has a voice and she's using it to remind Gareth that even if she is not human, she still has agency.

Just like the children who are exploited and solicited, Cherry is in a position where she has no choice, where an organization continually profits off her.

There's also the whole bit where she brutally tears into him, telling him that she bears the weight and brunt of his trauma, how he should have had the Clearwater conversation with her years ago--50, in fact.

There's this one line in Act 2 where Deena tells Gareth to "grow up". I think he never got past his child and the events that happened then.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, I came into the movie with no expectations and I thought that certain things were going to happen, but no. Completely subverted my expectations and made me rethink my expectations and beliefs in autonomy, who gets a say in making decisions, and how the decisions imposed on us by our parents can either heal or build us up as the years go by.

Another thing about the movie that I can never get enough about was the dialogue. You just jump in media res and you're forced to focus and fill in the blanks. All the fat has been cut, what needs to be said is either conveyed through body language or the necessary arguments/discussions that take place throughout the film.

It's minimal, but packs a powerful punch.

The Artifice Girl

[femenaces]

[it’s already being used to program entire websites and applications that used to take months to build in just minutes] this isn't happening. maybe extremely simple html/css skins and one off js/python/whatever scripts but i know for a fact it (chat gpt) can't actually, Actually program.

once again: it is not intelligent (it cannot THINK), it's just an extremely advanced web scraper. you give it pieces and it tries to match them. that isn't thought, it isn't "intelligence".

also your og argument was like, "ai is removing our ability to think and be human!"...i mentioned ai art taking effort to show that no, actually, you do still need to think about what you're making it do. you are still learning...picking up a book on composition and reading it so you better understand what makes an image look good is doing. and even then actual artists will have a better understanding of what makes something look good! they should integrate ai into their workflows to make things easier.

also also i have literally seen ppl on twt take your posts word for word and claim them as their own. you're already being consumed i'm afraid. artists also copy other artists all the time. this isn't anything new from a logical standpoint, it's just happening quicker now

Again, most of what you are interpreting as me "not understanding" is actually us disagreeing on a fundamental level. The exception, as you picked out, was my statement about programming. I misremembered the article I read and you're correct, as of right now, AI seems to mostly only be capable of programing "html/css skins and one off js/python/whatever scripts," and the time saved is weeks, not months. Still, that's weeks. And as is the case with everything AI right now, the limitations it has today will not be present in the very, very near future.

"once again: it is not intelligent (it cannot THINK), it's just an extremely advanced web scraper. you give it pieces and it tries to match them. that isn't thought, it isn't 'intelligence.'"

I never claimed it was real intelligence. When I used the word "think" in the phrase "aims to think for us" I didn't mean it in the literal sense, I meant that the humans who use the technology will be handing over their real, genuine thinking to an, as you say, "extremely advanced web scraper."

Which brings me to my other qualm: I don't consent to having my creations, visual, verbal or otherwise, "scraped" and fed into AI algorithms. I suspect many others do not either. The fact that the only response to this complaint I hear from AI supporters is "well then get off the internet!" is extremely concerning. That's not an acceptable solution.

"...you do still need to think about what you're making it do. you are still learning...picking up a book on composition and reading it so you better understand what makes an image look good is doing. and even then actual artists will have a better understanding..."

No, reading about what makes for a good composition so you can recognize it in one of the images your talent-scraping computer program spits out is not "doing" in the same way that actually painting the piece of art is. And it's frankly disingenuous to even suggest that. Not to mention that a general ability to recognize good artistic composition is not a difficult skill, and most people have a pretty robust innate sense for this already, or else the average person would not be able to discern between a good painting and a bad painting. And like I said before, as AI improves, users will have to do less and less of this curating.

"they [artists] should integrate ai into their workflows to make things easier"

Creating art is as much a part of what art "is" as the final result. Your use of the word "they" to describe artists leads me to believe you are not an artist yourself. So kindly, shut the fuck up about what we "should" let AI do to our hobbies and passions and livelihoods.

"i have literally seen ppl on twt take your posts word for word and claim them as their own. you're already being consumed i'm afraid. artists also copy other artists all the time. this isn't anything new from a logical standpoint, it's just happening quicker now"

Who is reposting my words on twitter and claiming them as their own? I am fine with people spreading my writing, even without credit. But I don't accept people claiming to have written it themselves. I think this portion of your ask is the most telling. "You're already being consumed i'm afraid," you say, snidely. To that I respond that consumption is entirely different than plagiarism. "Artists also copy other artists all the time" Again, direct copying, aka plagiarism, in the art world is universally frowned upon.

I've seen AI lovers claim that all AI is doing is "taking inspiration." Not only do I disagree that a machine is capable of the abstract concept of "taking inspiration," not only do I assert that the mechanisms of a human mind taking something it comprehends and re-creating it in a new way vs a computer modifying a direct image input based on algorithms is not comparable, but I also think that non-human generation of "art" is not art at all. There are beautiful, naturally occurring patterns and formations in nature, but they are not art. Art is something humans do. It isn't just a product, it's a behavior. So yes, logically, this is entirely "new." And I oppose it.

Lastly, your extremely condescending follow up ask telling me I am "blowing my top" is hilarious. Yeah, I am. I think everyone should be blowing their top over this.