Mind-Blowing AI Image Generator - Give Visual Representation to C's Concepts?

It's not just the frequency. It's how much information or packets of information you can compress into a digital medium. For example the Digital Terrestrial Television where in the same signal when sending data digitally (zeros and ones) can carry several channels of video and audio at the same time.

Thus, it is conceivable to think that in higher realities the information is more condensed so to speak

That makes sense! Higher frequency = more information packed into the same space...
 
Maybe that separation is part of the agenda? Zoom, for instance due to covid has allowed people to be more separate, to work from home and for meetings to now take place (in a work scenario) remotely. Social media is exactly the same, we can sit on a twitter or instagram or facebook all day interacting with people virtually, but not physically, thus limiting in person interactions. We view peoples lives remotely, which, is mainly a lie, because we only see what they want us to see, an edited version. By limiting our in person interactions maybe they hope to destroy our human bonds even more so, you only have to look at recent articles pertaining to smart cities and these 20km radiuses, covid and soon to be climate lockdowns, seems to be a lot about separating people?
Perhaps, but it may be easier to speculate if one looks at the fruits of their actions... look at the polarization that is taking over the world, over almost anything... it's real, but it's also fueled by twitter muscles, people would still disagree in person, but they would not behave in such immature and violent ways if they had a one to one conversation with someone. And that division, and polarization, makes people easier to predict, and control and manipulate.

Quite possibly yes, replacing it with a "generic" interpretation of what an AI "thinks", in this case as heartbreak and sadness. And I do agree that it is sad. Although, one could argue that most of what passes for music (or art for that matter) these days is not about connection, it's about making money and elevating status? And I am here talking about the the "big artists" who are beholden to their backers. For me it seems that the independent artists are the ones who are the true creatives, for they have nothing to lose by what they are doing?
oh yeah, and that will always exist.. I think it's called Pop music, although there are some cool pop songs, so that will never disappear, and it may be the entry to AI generated "art" cheap, formulaic and easy to consume. But yes, I was talking about real music or the type of music that speaks to you, and the real artists... well, I don't know if they have much to loose, I would say that perhaps, some artist jobs will be lost, as they're replaced by AI, not by technology making their creative endeavors easier to translate, but by something that aims to take over the creative process.

Also, is it a way of manipulating people into a more "mechanical" emotional state? Maybe it has to do with the the left brain right brain idea discussed elsewhere? human = right, AI = left?
Not sure if it's that simple of a dichotomy, because AI is a human generated tool, that used both Right and left brain approaches, but it is, IMO, a left brain view of art by deconstructing something into its components and attempting to emulate it by dismissing what's in between all those components that makes it Art. But humans are just as capable of perceiving the world in such a way exclusively, in fact we all do it all the time.

So if i understand you here, if you know how it works then it has less power over you?
No, I think it has the same power over you, you'd just be aware of said power and your decision would be better informed, but it is the same power, I think. It's like, alcohol, knowing about it and how it works, doesn't mean you won't get drunk if you have enough of it.
 
people would still disagree in person, but they would not behave in such immature and violent ways if they had a one to one conversation with someone. And that division, and polarization, makes people easier to predict, and control and manipulate.
totally agree. I guess the million dollar question is, what can we do about it?

I don't know if they have much to loose, I would say that perhaps, some artist jobs will be lost, as they're replaced by AI, not by technology making their creative endeavors easier to translate, but by something that aims to take over the creative process.

I think the biggest job losses will be stock art, whether it be photos, music, beats, CG renders, what ever you like, that's where I think Ai will take over.


but it is, IMO, a left brain view of art by deconstructing something into its components and attempting to emulate it by dismissing what's in between all those components that makes it Art. But humans are just as capable of perceiving the world in such a way exclusively, in fact we all do it all the time.

Yes this was the point I was attempting to make, but you articulated much better, and yes I agree it's not a simple black and white thing, we are just as capable of it, maybe more so now that the left brain ideology has become so dominant?

No, I think it has the same power over you, you'd just be aware of said power and your decision would be better informed, but it is the same power, I think. It's like, alcohol, knowing about it and how it works, doesn't mean you won't get drunk if you have enough of it.

ok I'm following you now, I like the analogy, I guess what it would mean though, is that by knowing about alcohol you would drink less and thus "limit" its power?!
 
We meet on zoom these days, and one could make the case that it is replacing in person meetings, zoom isn't evil, it's a tool. So long as one understands that, then one is ok IMO, it's the danger of assuming that because of the fidelity the tool produces, it replaces what it facilitates, human interaction.

Does that make sense?

Yes, @Alejo I think that makes perfect sense. Once you meet a person in person it gives something that technology cannot replace. Of course, we are discussing this using technology but perhaps one day we will find better ways to get together in person (teleportation anyone?).

There was a session where the Cs made a subtle distinction between listening to a recording vs a live performance. It was in relation to watching dancing or listening to music.

Session 26 July 1997:
Q: Is the watching of these dances or listening to this music helpful in unlocking ancient genetic memories?

A: In person, not through reproduction. Wearing of silk will enhance the EM effect.

Q: Well, that makes sense. The alchemists talked about this also.
Now, Terry wanted to ask if there was any relation between Hapsburg and Hotspur?

A: No.
There seems to be something powerful about live dancing or live music that can not be experienced "through reproduction".
 
totally agree. I guess the million dollar question is, what can we do about it?
I think that is very individual and contextual, it doesn't mean hiding away one's thoughts, but not seeing the through the lens of twitter goggles, and remind ourselves of the humanity in the other, that we have a lot more in common than our online disagreements might want us to believe. It's external consideration in the end. That humanity, and human to human connexion, that interestingly enough, is what AI could hijack.

I think the biggest job losses will be stock art, whether it be photos, music, beats, CG renders, what ever you like, that's where I think Ai will take over.
I agree, initially at least, but it's not far fetched to consider a world where AI could be programed to create PC comedy for instance, the possibilities as of right now are not clear enough.

Yes this was the point I was attempting to make, but you articulated much better, and yes I agree it's not a simple black and white thing, we are just as capable of it, maybe more so now that the left brain ideology has become so dominant?
I think so, but I also don't think it's something to be done away entirely, sometimes seeing things in a cold analytical way is the right response to life, sometimes it's the only way to solve certain puzzles. As with most things, the trick is balance... not to become overtly identified with one or the other, however, as the world seems today, we are heavily leaning on the left brained perception of reality, OSIT.

ok I'm following you now, I like the analogy, I guess what it would mean though, is that by knowing about alcohol you would drink less and thus "limit" its power?!
In a sense yes, because you're aware not only of what it does generally, but also what it does to you personally.. and that requires some self-awareness and some honesty too, because knowing that would allow you to not lie to yourself about the reasons you'd be partaking in it, and that makes a world of a difference, you wouldn't be self deceiving or convincing yourself of a narrative.

You see, the trick, in my view, isn't to be completely abstinent, but being honest with the self about it, and being aware of its potential effects. Which is the conversation we're having, not creating a dogma or prohibition per se, but shedding light on it so that we can be better informed about it.
 
There seems to be something powerful about live dancing or live music that can not be experienced "through reproduction".
I agree, I think it's the reason a silent hug can really shed things like loneliness away, much more effectively than several videos of supporting words could... I know that sounds drastic, because it's never quite like that.. but you get the idea.

Recently I finished a book by John Keel in which he discusses the EM fields that human beings generate, and I think it has something to do with this in person "thing" that cannot be replaced by high fidelity reproductions. In that sense, in person interactions really represent an interaction at several levels, that we may not be aware of but that we definitely can sense.
 
I continue to follow up and how this is developing.


On December 16th I received this email.

1671803604631.png


Day by day this gets more dystopian / cyberpunk.

However, as I pointed out in the thread of the last C's session, perhaps this is being pushed by the PTB/Elite.

A: Push to get a machine translator.

Q: (L) Um, okay we'll come back to that. Hello. Who do we have with us this evening?

A: Rilniaea of Cassiopaea and hello to all.

Q: (L) Back to what you said... Okay, who should push to get a machine translator?

A: What elite are doing in preparation. Part of AI initiative.

Q: (L) So they want AI to build a machine translator that can translate alien speech?

A: Yes


A wild idea just crossed my mind. If the elite are looking for an AI capable of translating what the aliens say... I don't know why but I just associated it with the development of the AI to "draw by text input."


Because perhaps after all there is a telepathic element (conceptual images) that cannot be understood by spoken language alone. Perhaps the intent is that the AI can subtract the intent behind the spoken language and capture it in an image, revealing the hidden intent.
 
Thanks to all for the discussion about this. After reading through the thread, I had a number of thoughts to share.

I remembered a conceptual distinction that used to be a big part of my life, the difference between Beauty and glamour.

glamour (n.)

1720, Scottish, "magic, enchantment" (especially in phrase to cast the glamor), a variant of Scottish gramarye "magic, enchantment, spell," said to be an alteration of English grammar (q.v.) in a specialized use of that word's medieval sense of "any sort of scholarship, especially occult learning," the latter sense attested from c. 1500 in English but said to have been more common in Medieval Latin. Popularized in English by the writings of Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832). Sense of "magical beauty, alluring charm" first recorded 1840. As that quality of attractiveness especially associated with Hollywood, high-fashion, celebrity, etc., by 1939.

Jamieson's 1825 supplement to his "Etymological Dictionary of the Scottish Language" has glamour-gift "the power of enchantment; metaph. applied to female fascination." Jamieson's original edition (1808) looked to Old Norse for the source of the word. Zoëga's Old Icelandic dictionary has glám-sýni "illusion," probably from the same root as gleam.
Related entries & more

glamour (v.)

1814, "to enchant, charm, bewitch," from glamour (n.). Related: Glamoured; glamouring.

As noted above, glamour is etymologically linked to grammar. There's an interesting piece by graphic novel writer Alan Moore that dives into this glamour/grammar/spellcasting aspect of art. Although he uses the term magic as a way to talk about the way that art can cause a change in consciousness, and considers himself a wizard or whatever, I like the points he brings together, which I think pertains to these AI generated photos as an example of glamour. There is a certain impression I get from them, a particular way they touch my consciousness.

Maybe we can consider that Beauty is Beauty because it has the potential to transform us and maybe awaken or feed something deep in our Souls in some way when it touches our consciousness, whereas glamour is something different. Although it is aesthetically pleasing, or even quite striking, it doesn't nourish or awaken in the same way, and maybe even functions to put us deeper into sleep. I didn't really notice much of an inner response to the photos personally, most likely 'cuz I was feeling a little out of it while reading along and I had been reading for a few hours at that point. It did seem to me that there was something missing, though.

There seems to be something powerful about live dancing or live music that can not be experienced "through reproduction".

Your use of the word reproduction caught my eye. The development of new technology and its affects on art, with corresponding effects on the human sense of Beauty has been a matter of discussion for a long time. There seems to be a certain trend, where in the face of technological advances, some portion of the population is very resistant. This resistance expresses itself usually by idolizing the former days of glory, which are understood to be more honest, authentic, and simpler. However, there's also a danger here. In the book The Invention of Tradition, it's clear that traditions are sometimes just created whole cloth, and the idealized past is just a fantasy. This is striking in the case of the Scottish kilt - and also the entire Scottish clan system - which apparently was invented and then back-projected as ancient during the advances of industrialism! One really wonderful example of this romanticization of the past and resistance to technological change in the Arts and Crafts movement. They sought to 'wage holy war against the age' by becoming involved in every step in the process of artistic production, attempting to become holistic artisans. I admit, I appreciate their spunk!

Of particular note in this vein of art history is Walter Benjamin's essay 'The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction'.

"The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1935), by Walter Benjamin, is an essay of cultural criticism which proposes and explains that mechanical reproduction devalues the aura (uniqueness) of an objet d'art.[1] That in the age of mechanical reproduction and the absence of traditional and ritualistic value, the production of art would be inherently based upon the praxis of politics. Written during the Nazi régime (1933–1945) in Germany, Benjamin's essay presents a theory of art that is "useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art" in a mass-culture society.[2]

The subject and themes of Benjamin's essay: the aura of a work of art; the artistic authenticity of the artefact; its cultural authority; and the aestheticization of politics for the production of art, became resources for research in the fields of art history and architectural theory, cultural studies and media theory.[3]

The 'aura', according to Benjamin, belongs to the original work of art in and of itself, a product of its specific location and time. So back in the day, there was only one painting of Da Vinci's 'The Virgin of the Rocks'. It was a product of Da Vinci's Being, and his Being was synchronized or even channeling in the context of a particular place and time. There is the individual and the environment in an exchange that is transferred or recorded onto the paper or canvas. This results in a sort of energetic vibe that resonates throughout the ages as one specific and unique aura. Interesting to see the Lethbridge material mentioned, and how there is a huge difference when an original work of art is dowsed by a pendulum versus a mechanical reproduction. And I think it's understandable how mechanical reproduction devalues artwork, if only in the basic sense that if there is only one 'The Virgin of the Rocks' in the world, then it becomes quite an event and perhaps even and adventure to lay eyes on it, versus being able to type it into Google and see it at your convenience.

Benjamin quotes Paul Valery, who wrote this bit in 1928, but is easily applicable today.
Our fine arts were developed, their types and uses were established, in times very different from the present, by men whose power of action upon things was insignificant in comparison with ours. But the amazing growth of our techniques, the adaptability and precision they have attained, the ideas and habits they are creating, make it a certainty that profound changes are impending in the ancient craft of the Beautiful. In all the arts there is a physical component which can no longer be considered or treated as it used to be, which cannot remain unaffected by our modern knowledge and power. For the last twenty years neither matter nor space nor time has been what it was from time immemorial. We must expect great innovations to transform the entire technique of the arts, thereby affecting artistic invention itself and perhaps even bringing about an amazing change in our very notion of art.[5]

This has me thinking that time is a central issue with these images. Is part of the fascination the speed at which the images are generated? Speed has its time and place for sure, but it is a pretty dangerous obsession. Seems to me that speed has become an unspoken expectation, with one result being that instant gratification is everywhere at this stage in the hysteroidal cycle. Technology changes space and time (or changes with changes in space and time) as mentioned by Valery above. There's this idea that the speeding up of the world tends to eradicate old distances, and not just geographically, like in the transformation caused by the personal automobile, but also psychologically in the distance between wanting something and getting it. I think the way in which technology changes our lives, our minds, and our world is probs one of the most discussed topics in the world, whether its in the field of art history or sci-fi novels or cursing God because the internet is slow and I want to watch this movie right-freaking-now.

I've noticed that I have expected a lot from the world, expected from myself and others, and taken a lot for granted, especially now with the ponderings about the fall of the system that has provided me with the heat, water, electricity, food and clothes and internet, as well as art and entertainment, etc. Although I have really liked improving self-sufficiency skills, in general I have expected to not have to 'pay' very much for any of what I've received, in the sense of paying for it with the time allotted to me on this planet - to pay via patience when that longing for a certain something arrives. Still working on that one. It's pretty normal to want various kinds suffering to be over with speed, but in certain cases it is better to go down into the grief - as Khalil Gibran wrote, sorrow is what empties out your cup so that it can be filled again.

Side trip into Healing Developmental Trauma:
Qualia and Reentry

Contrary to popular belief, the brain does not operate like a camera that takes in a whole scene. It is more like a feature detector that detects individual stimuli, (for examples, edges, contours, line orientation, colour, form, pitch, volume, and movement) and processes them in separate regions of the brain. The term quale (plural qualia) refers to discrete attributes of reality such as green, round, or hot; the experience of the qual (say, green) is generally never in isolation of other attributes (long, sharp, cool). Given the absence of a computer-like central processor in the brain, each quale is processed in its own separate region of the brain and has its own neural networks. The experience of qualia is based in the wiring and activity of an individual's nervous system. Each and every perception is actively constructed from the building blocks of individual sensory cues under the guidance and influence of emotion, motivation, and prior experience. How a person experiences qualia is therefore highly personal and is believed to be a large part of what shapes personal consciousness.

It's then stated that attention to qualia and their coherent reentry is the single-most-important feature of higher brain organization - it's the basis of our perception of reality. And I notice that emotion, motivation and experience are listed there are major influences, too. I don't think an AI has these guiding influences (or does it?!), and as such, the reentry it creates will always lack heart, drive, and a sense of being-in-the-world with all of its joys and sufferings.

So, trying to put some of this together, if the 'aura' of a work of art is an energy, could that energy could be understood as a set of frequencies, disparate waveform aspects of the qualia of the piece that coalesce into a coherent whole upon reentry? Frequency is the rate at which something occurs, which has to do with both time and speed in a way I don't really understand. There's something very important about the time the artist 'spends', as a form of energetic payment - from all of the years in training while developing the craft, growing into maturity through challenges, to the point of conception or the inspiration of a piece, and then on top of that all of the diligent hours at work in a creative state... it's all quite a lot to put together. This all contributes to the frequency of the aura of the whole piece. The artist would be like the conductor of an orchestra of thought, sensation, and emotion - and maybe also a 'conductor' in the electric sense, who has somehow made possible the process of grounding a flow of Beauty in the world, where the aura upon reentry is recognizable as something very precious to whomever looks at it because of its singularity. If the eyes are the window into the Soul, they are also probably the window out of the Soul as well, and in great works of art we can catch of glimpse of the Seeing of another. In this line of thinking, our perception of the aura of work of visual art is kinda like listening to an orchestra with our eyes.
 
However, as I pointed out in the thread of the last C's session, perhaps this is being pushed by the PTB/Elite.
The idea that it is an initiative of the PTB/Elite makes one wonder why they want an AI translator. If the 4D STS ships land and there is media coverage it would probably be expedient for the military and their governments to not appear totally out of control.

Look, no problem we can communicate with them using this nifty A.I. translator. See we have this under control, not to worry. :cry:
 
The idea that it is an initiative of the PTB/Elite makes one wonder why they want an AI translator. If the 4D STS ships land and there is media coverage it would probably be expedient for the military and their governments to not appear totally out of control.

Look, no problem we can communicate with them using this nifty A.I. translator. See we have this under control, not to worry. :cry:
And then it turns out that it was all a setup and a trap by 4D STS, ensuring all and every device is tapped to some sort of an AI to which they can "upload" themselves into. So once they land, the AIs will suddenly go "we are the Borg. you will be assimilated. resistance is futile". 😏
 
Art has been degrading for a couple of centuries already, and a lot of what passes for art nowadays is not that impressive or inspiring anyway. One could hope that with the deployment of these algorithms, real artists will step up their game and start producing quality art that cannot be monkeyed by idiotic machines. We'll see if that happens or not before everything goes down the pipes.
 
I came across this article, out of all places, in The Guardian, which I think made a decent point about AI, specially when considered from the point of view of computers overpowering us eventually.

I’m a copywriter. I’m pretty sure artificial intelligence is going to take my job​


My amusement turned to horror: it took ChatGPT 30 seconds to create, for free, an article that would take me hours to write

“Write an article on ‘What is payment gateway?’” I recently typed into a ChatGPT window. ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence-powered writing generator, quickly obliged.

The result was impressive. Sure, the tone was inhuman and the structure as sophisticated as a college essay, but the key points, the grammar and the syntax were all spot on. After a bit of a punch-up, it was perfectly passable as a sponsored content article designed to drum up business leads for a software provider – an article like the one that I, a professional copywriter, had just spent hours writing.

My amusement quickly turned to horror: it had taken ChatGPT roughly 30 seconds to create, for free, an article that I charged £500 for. The artificial intelligence software is by no means perfect – yet. For businesses that rely on churning out reams of fresh copy, however, it’s a no-brainer, isn’t it?

For those unfamiliar with ChatGPT, let me explain. Developed by OpenAI, ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence-based chatbot that’s been trained to interact with users in a natural, conversational way. Unlike traditional language models, ChatGPT can learn to generate responses without explicit instructions on what the correct answer is. Users can make any request – from Tell me about Watergate to Write an opinion piece about ChatGPT taking someone’s job – and ChatGPT will produce a response. If you run it through a plagiarism checker, you’ll discover that that content is 100% unique.

I instructed ChatGPT to write a version of this article. Here’s how it opened:

As a copywriter, I’ve spent years honing my craft and perfecting my ability to craft compelling and persuasive copy. But now, it seems that my job is at risk of being taken over by ChatGPT, a large language model trained by OpenAI.

The developers admit that the software still has limitations. It tends towards the verbose and repetitive (“honing my craft and perfecting my ability to craft”), and minor changes to question phrasing can be the difference between an amazing response and no response at all. The more we use it, however, the better it will become. As ChatGPT told me, it can already “replicate the writing styles of different authors” and “even be trained to mimic the tone and voice of a particular brand or organization”.

I don’t claim any superior insight, just a realization that if a company can improve its bottom line by cutting costs in its supply chain, it will. Any sentimental attachment to human-created content is sure to be quickly overridden, I suspect, by the economic argument. After all, AI is super-fast labor that doesn’t eat, sleep, complain or take holidays.

In the near term, writers and editors will still be needed, but fewer of them. A human will prompt AI to generate mountains of copy, only intervening again to fact-check, amend and approve. But how long before the model learns to spot commercial opportunities, generate ideas and put perfect content live without any human involvement?

What does this mean for you? PriceWaterhouseCooper predicts that AI will produce a $15tn boost to GDP by 2030. Fantastic, but it also predicts that 3% of jobs are already at risk from AI. By the mid-2030s, this proportion will jump to 30% – 44% among workers with low education. That’s a lot of people who will need to “upskill”, retrain or drop out of the workforce.

History has shown that, when technology has replaced humans, we’ve created new purposes for ourselves. But in its eternal quest for self-improvement, is there a danger that AI will continually outpace us by making us redundant more quickly than we can redefine our roles? To take the creative industries as one example, AI is already replacing movie extras, songwriters and audiobook narrators.

Some observers have suggested that the introduction of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) – paid for by AI-generated wealth – is the best bet for the future. In his essay “Moore’s Law for Everything”, Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, claimed that AI could drive enough economic output to pay every adult in the US $13,500 a year, while dramatically driving down the cost of goods and services.

But work isn’t just income. For many, it’s meaning. Far from the tyrannical robots and human batteries seen in sci-fi, the real problem we might have to contend with is an epidemic of purposelessness. Even when not twinned with deprivation, a lack of purpose can contribute to depression, anxiety and addiction.

Governments are already developing strategies to deal with this seismic shift in the labor market, but I’d urge individuals to do the same. I certainly will be. As with any revolutionary technology, there’s much debate over how exactly AI will reshape our lives in the coming decades, and not enough space to do every perspective justice here. But one thing is for certain: change is coming, and those who embrace it and adapt will be best placed to thrive.

Or as ChatGPT would say:

The key is to find the right balance between using technology and honing the human touch. Copywriting is an art and it requires creativity, empathy and understanding of the target audience. So, ChatGPT will not take my job, but it will be my partner to create more impactful and persuasive copy

But it would say that, wouldn’t it?

This quote specifically:

But work isn’t just income. For many, it’s meaning. Far from the tyrannical robots and human batteries seen in sci-fi, the real problem we might have to contend with is an epidemic of purposelessness. Even when not twinned with deprivation, a lack of purpose can contribute to depression, anxiety and addiction.

I think that's one of those things that I hadn't considered but makes sense, work.. for a human being, isn't just about the earnings.. it's about the meaning it brings with it into your life. AI overpowering us might mean a lot more than taking our jobs... it may mean taking our lives by making them endlessly convenient.
 
I think that's one of those things that I hadn't considered but makes sense, work.. for a human being, isn't just about the earnings.. it's about the meaning it brings with it into your life. AI overpowering us might mean a lot more than taking our jobs... it may mean taking our lives by making them endlessly convenient.

Ah! the key word is addiction. A new form of addiction that would keep people in a new time loop.

The old saying: Leisure is the mother of all sins.
 
The idea that it is an initiative of the PTB/Elite makes one wonder why they want an AI translator. If the 4D STS ships land and there is media coverage it would probably be expedient for the military and their governments to not appear totally out of control.

Look, no problem we can communicate with them using this nifty A.I. translator. See we have this under control, not to worry. :cry:
A lot of possible angles. Another is that they don't trust the aliens. (Do they trust anyone?) At some level, some the the PTB/elite must realize they are in deep with these "aliens" and suspect they are being "played" by these "superior" entities and are trying to gain some sort of edge.
 
Back
Top Bottom