Tim Boucher

Questionable content, possibly linked

Crazy Amazon Products, Vol. 2

I couldn’t stop with these the other day – that is, until I was rate-limited by Dalle. I swear, I don’t even know why I pay for these tools anymore that don’t let me do what I want or need when I want or need it. But complaining aside, these fake Amazon product images (archived) are nothing short of incredible. I’d love to see an entire coffee-table book of these…

Click the link above for the full image set. Here are some samples:

These images so perfectly encapsulate so many of my… feelings, it’s amazing. Check out the full image set linked above.

Amazon Weird Products Image Set (Dalle)

Got some incredible results out of Dalle tonight, which I compiled into into an Imgur post here (archived). I asked Dalle to depict product images from Amazon with incomprehensible, unnecessary and other just generally bad ideas.

Couple highlights here, but click link above for the full set:

Looking through that set, I honestly can’t tell a lot of these aren’t real, because Amazon is such a wasteland of pseudo-English words and cheap crap, it’s more real than reality, it’s hyperreality from a parallel hell dimension that undulates at a quantum level orthogonally intersecting and de-intersecting our reality continuously…

As a bit of a rant: I’ve consistently experienced a really annoying behavior using Dalle, which I pay a monthly fee to use. It goes like this: just when I’m having really good image results, going on an incredible streak of basically perfect images accurately and creatively reflecting my inner vision, and I’m getting into that kind of “flow state” that is so essentially to good deep artistic exploration and creation, I start getting rate limited. Which puts a dent in that buzz, and basically in short order puts an end to whatever winning streak I was on.

As an artist trying to use this product to make art, and paying for it, the system needs to get out of my way and do the things I’m paying it to do, not try to break my balls when I’m on a roll.

AI-Assisted Painting Experiments

This is a not great quality picture of it, but I recently finished a painting inspired by the head of Hygeia in the National Archaelogical Museum in Athens.

There’s an underlying drawing I did of the subject from memory based on other studies I did by hand. I took this and projected the photo of the drawing onto my canvas:

It’s not an incredible drawing but was good enough to get the shapes in. But It didn’t end up seeming right and I painted over it a good bit, and sort of fragmented the features in a pseudo-neo cubist inspired thing. But didn’t end up liking that enough, so took a gamble on another projected image, one made by Dalle while trying to get it to reproduce something in the style of the original Hygeia museum piece.

This is my second time using AI in conjunction with a physical painting. But the last one was a reference image that I just based my own drawing off of freehand. This is the first time trying to overlay directly onto the canvas via tracing off a projection.

It’s gotten me thinking lots of crazy thoughts about how to potentially integrate AI tools into actual physical painting (and other art-making). Like what if I could hook my projector up to a generative AI which is being periodically fed webcam images of the latest state of my IRL canvas. And then it could automatically or when I ask it, suggest next brushstrokes or propose visual alterations, styles, directions I might explore. And these would be projected as overlaid suggestions on my canvas, which I could then “accept” or reject or whatever by painting them in myself in my own way.

It would be something like a camera lucida with an AI in the loop:

This train of thought sent me down a deep deep rabbit hole about early and possibly secret use of optics my artists going back to the 1400’s possibly, according to the Hockney-Falco thesis. You can see a great BBC documentary on Hockney’s theories, and he’s got a book about it I haven’t read called Secret Knowledge. Here’s a Youtube embed:

Another related one that’s worth watching is Tim’s Vermeer which goes on a similar track of trying to prove Vermeer used a similar method with mirrors and something something. Pretty fascinating all around.

I found there’s a business trying to market the “Vermirror,” or as others have called it more generically, the comparator mirror. From what I can tell, the trick is basically getting a first surface or front surface mirror, which is brighter and reflects on its front face instead of its back face. And it’s held by some kind of rigid arm to keep it in the correct position relative to your work surface and subject. This video of art students using them gives a good idea of how it works:

I’ve currently got on order some bits and bobs that I will finagle together into being something like this. The advantage to using the mirror is that unlike when you project directly onto your canvas, you can still see the colors you’re mixing. They aren’t washed out or modified by the projected image.

Anyway I tried to get Dalle to generate a patent-style drawing of what a contraption like this might look like, where a combination projector & web cam capture images of a canvas, send it for processing, and send back suggested next strokes. It’s a little wonky and disconnected, but it shows some fun relationships nonetheless, and it lets the mind wander a bit looking at it, thinking about the possibilities.

I actually tried getting Dalle to do this task:

  • Take my painting image as input
  • Reproduce the image with suggested modifications

But it doesn’t seem able to reproduce an image, let alone modify it.

So then I had the idea of like okay:

  • From the input image, make a verbal description of what you would change.
  • It was able to do that no problem.
  • Then I said, okay take the changes you would make based on your verbal description, and draw them on a new image which can be used as overlay to guide painting in changes on the original image

But nope, that didn’t work. It got stuck in a loop of thinking it was helping me and linking to non-existent Imgur images. So that’s a little disappointing, but I think there’s something here. I just have to figure out the right pathway with the right tools to get to it. And Dalle is probably not the one for this, currently.

I did manage to get one image set out of this when I was asking for overlays for how it would modify the original. It gave me this:

It’s not really what I had in mind by overlay and suggesting brush strokes at a micro-level that is in line with the style of the original input image. But I did notice that when I scaled it and rotated it a little, it’s actually fairly close to many of the major facial landmarks:

Obviously the neck and ear arrangements are different, but there’s a lot of match here, even though I don’t agree at all with the stylistic direction. But also that’s kind of the point of a collaboration too, that you both bring in completely different ideas and references and impulses. So maybe there is value to exploring in this part of the liminal latent/real image space…

One final thought on that note, from a Guardian 2014 piece criticizing the Vermeer documentary, I think quite wrongly:

The film is a depressing attempt to reduce genius to a trick. […]

The technology Jenison relies on can replicate art, but it does so synthetically, with no understanding of art’s inner life. The “Vermeer” it spits out is a stillborn simulacrum.

Love it or leave it, but we live in a world where the simulation in many cases is more “real” in some aspects than the so-called Real. And this notion that studying how this might work is somehow “cheating” or a “trick” itself to me completely misses the boat on what art is: it’s artifice upon artifice, and somehow through that, finding authenticity despite everything.

Vat-Bundles & Overwrite Mode

Via another link from Futurism.com:

“Switzerland-based startup FinalSpark claims to have built a unique computer processor made from 16 mini brains made from human brain tissue, Tom’s Hardware reports — and they are positioning this “living computer” as an alternative to silicon-based computing.

And now, other researchers can remotely access the startup’s biocomputer, the Neuroplatform, to conduct studies on, say, artificial intelligence, which typically requires enormous resources.

One of the biggest advantages of biological computing is that neurons compute information with much less energy than digital computers,” FinalSpark scientist and strategic advisor Ewelina Kurtys wrote in a company blog post earlier this month. “It is estimated that living neurons can use over 1 million times less energy than the current digital processors we use.”

First of all, I have pretty much an entire book about this exact concept, which I refer to as “vat bundles” and which is discussed extensively in The Abomination Crisis (quote below). This is one of the luxuries that comes with having put out so many books, is eventually you have covered a broad range of stuff, and you can do exactly this and say, Oh, yeah, I have a book about that…

“They were termed “vat-bundles” to avoid legal complications with regards to the grey areas around cloning, reproductive, and human rights. Given that they were literally bundles of nerves grown in a vat solution – which could either live there for an indeterminate period in that form, or be inserted into biological or cybernetic organisms – the naming stuck in popular use.”

There’s also a theme/story device I use in a number of the AI Lore books, especially the Topia Books, where people can temporarily or permanently have their personalities taken over and controlled remotely in a kind of overwrite mode. In the books, there are references to being able to watch movies or play games somehow internally during overwrite sessions, while your body is put through random tasks by the AI systems which control society.

I’d always assumed I guess that what the AIs did with your body was mostly “physbod” tasks (physical body or ‘real’ work), but the item about FinalSpark’s supposed real life vat-bundles makes me think that maybe also the AIs during these sessions use the human brains as distributed biological processing nodes – sort of a human cloud server writ large. Makes sense if you think about it…

Quoting Maggie Harrison Dupré on AI Governance Need

In other words, the decisions made by big AI industry players impact everyone. Right now, though, those who lead AI companies are pretty much the only ones making those choices.

Source.

AI & Artistic Limitations, via Matt Weber

This piece by Matt Weber is one of the more thoughtful reactions I’ve seen so far to my work using AI as an artistic tool like any other, with both strengths and many many limitations. It’s interesting to me because it’s mentioned they found my work organically via a directory of bloggers that I added myself to. And not because like most people who found it because of a news article or an (angry) social media post. So this read of it all seems to be much more in tune with my own actual thinking on these issues, which is a nice change of pace.

French AI Lore Books Print Editions Coming Soon

Speaking of potential subliminal harms in the EU related to AI (/s), I’m pleased to make the teaser soft launch announcement that the full set of AI Lore books, and the three other books I wrote prior to that (121 titles in total) are being translated and published in France in a small printed format (about the size of a cell phone). I’m starting to get early proofs back, and the quality looks amazing. These are gonna be beautiful, fun, pulpy little AI books in a speculative fiction genre all their own. We’ll have more news and an opportunity to order online direct from the publisher in the coming weeks. Super exciting & stay tuned!

Subliminal Harms in EU AI Act

I’m both interested in and puzzling over this clause in Article 5(a) of the EU AI Act:

(a) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of an AI system that deploys subliminal techniques beyond a person’s consciousness in order to materially distort a person’s behaviour in a manner that causes or is likely to cause that person or another person physical or psychological harm;

This is both a potentially deep wording and also one which is potentially very fluffy and so not concrete that it might be a practical impossibility to effectively enforce it.

What the heck does “beyond a person’s consciousness” even mean?

Also there is such a broad spectrum of technologies which already “materially distort a person’s behavior” that we need to look much more carefully and closely at which of those and precisely how they bring people to especially psychological harm.

I would argue, for example, that opening up Youtube on a smart tv already aims entirely to materially distort a person’s behavior by bringing you a bunch of recommended videos to watch. It might be theoretically to your benefit because you went there to watch videos, but I’ve seen user behavior in kids especially where they turn on the tv with the idea “let’s watch ___” (such and such show or film) but then when Youtube opens, their original intention is diverted to something that Youtube instead has decided they should watch.

It might be a right or wrong recommended video, but that’s beside the point. The point is the fracturing and fragmentation of the original human intent which caused the person to engage with the system in the first place. I would personally argue this is over the long term and extremely dangerous and damaging UX pattern to normalize, as it essentially subjugates the human will to the algorithmic.

YouTube uses, no doubt, machine learning at least if not “AI” (whatever that even means anymore). So it could conceivably be covered under the Act – except is this UX pattern “beyond a person’s consciousness” or not? It’s highly unclear. It’s not exactly “subliminal” in the way I think most of us mean it – like hidden messages in the videos or something. But I think this pattern does sort of slip through the cracks in such a way that most people might not realize it that if their original intention was materially distorted by making use of the system.

Anyway, this is just one of many extremely confusing parts of the AI Act that I wrote about in my last post, and I’ll try to continue dissecting here as time permits between many other projects.

Final Version EU AI Act

I’ve been having a devil of a time figuring which version of the EU’s recently passed Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) is the final one. So I wrote to the European Commission Library, figuring they could help me if anyone could. They replied that this link below is the official final version. I thought I would do the favor to anyone else looking to get this into Google search results. Here is the full title of the Act and a link to it:

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL LAYING DOWN HARMONISED RULES ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ACT) AND AMENDING CERTAIN UNION LEGISLATIVE ACTS

COM/2021/206 final


I’ll save more detailed commentary for another time, but I have to say I’m actually a bit disappointed reading it, because… it makes little sense to me. I was a huge fan of GDPR – that one really clicked for me. I liked their other album, DSA (Digital Services Act), though I think much of it may prove to be unworkable in practice. But the AI Act, I’m struggling to follow it, because it seems like they don’t really know what the thing is that they are trying to regulate. So they have taken one concept of “high risk” and very loosely organized it, and then penciled in a bunch of other sketches in the margins, and called it a day.

I guess this might be less of a big deal if it only affected the EU, but one big issue I see with these kinds of regs getting passed is that they other countries or actors say, “Well, look how good the EU did – they passed a whole act!” But probably a lot of the people who reference how great this act is have not actually read it in any detail. I don’t find it to be that good, and I’m not sure at the end of the day how much it’s going to protect against abuses of these technologies. I guess we’ll see. I’m not going to hold my breath about any of these laws holding back the tide in any kind of meaningful way though. Companies know enough to just route around these kinds of blockages in a global market.

Authentic Artifice

I.

As the world falls apart, world-building becomes an act of personal defiance – resistance, even – to all that threatens to engulf us. As consensus reality bends ever nearer to the breaking point, the creative imagination of detailed, expansive multiverses becomes a way to maintain one’s soul, sanity, and humanity amid a rising tide of chaos. It is a re-ordering, and re-orientation of inner and outer realities, and one which admits the possibility of other ways out of this mess and this ever-enclosing yet ever-expanding maze. 

At their best, alternate fictional realities – of our own or collective imagining – may even offer something of a partial antidote to evil, and a detournement of dystopia and destruction towards something else, an unseen other. A still silent something which we can then strive to actualize once we’re able to envision it with the eyes of the heart. Utopia. The city on the hill. The garden on an island. 

To dismiss world-building as mere escapist fantasy, then, is to misunderstand its twin potentialities, its invigorating and stabilizing effects on the psyche, both in times of crisis and peace. Children exercise this imaginal faculty naturally, instinctively, inventing invisible scenarios, playmates, entire paracosms to suit their own emotional needs and creative desires. So too might we engage in this type of unique world-play in the face of the ever-increasing homogenisation and totalizing effects of technology, and under the shadow of the vast empty algorithms which seek to harvest data from us as we fall, usurping our sovereignty to turn us into mere automatons made in their image.

The so-called Uncanny Valley has been with us for ages, in the eyes of the inhumane human beings who don the guise of the merchant-machine’s own thirst for efficiency, predictability, and profit – embracing it as their own, sacrificing themselves at its altar in the process. It is in the sick hearts of both the Influencer and Influenced, who chase likes and clicks in an endless anxious ouroboros, who give and withhold approval in some sick sad game to outsmart systems that have no intelligence in the first place – systems which instead devour the intelligence of all they touch, which show us the way that is not the True Way. Who beg us endlessly to like, subscribe, and follow. We have become bots to one another. Personal brands, not persons. We are all already AI.

II.

Using AI doesn’t make me an artist, but being an artist is what made me use AI. Picasso said something about painting being stronger than him, that it made him do whatever it wanted. For me, AI seems like the new painting, the new artistic force that compels… Not just painting with a brush, mind you, but painting with ideas, words, entire pictures and videos at once, songs, voices, characters. Worlds. Each a brush stroke on a larger hypercanvas, whose true form can only be viewed from the vantage point of the higher dimensional latent space of human imagination.

In these creative explorations, AI is perfectly suited as a companion, an accompanist, a partner to bring out deep expressions of the seemingly innate human trait of building fictional worlds, and populating lands of the imagination with our own reflections: our thoughts, feelings, our hopes and failings, our biases, and unconscious statistical desires, our taking, our giving… 

Like comics before it, much/most/all AI art is not considered “art” by the general public and the hatefluencers who have internalized the anger and outrage that drives the algorithm, and them along with it, as biological expressions of it. Humans driven by weaponized AI advertising feeds beamed straight into the brain courtesy of news feeds, cell phones, towers, satellites, platforms, countries, all owned by the same few billionaires.

Like Nature which is everywhere at all times – even present in the acts of Man – art pervades all things. There is no such thing as, “this is art, this other is not art.” All that exists does so artfully, through craft, through expression (including genetic & ecosystemic), through form, propelled out of formlessness by the unfolding of some unseen grace. All is artifice. The artifice of flowers, of the sheer face of a mountain, of clouds on a moonlit night, geese honking in anticipation of the arrival of the Aurora. 

Artifice alone does not imply guile and falsity. Artifice is the construction of the thing, the moment, the beauty, the particular shape of it. Calling something artificial therefore or synthetic should instead be a recognition that all things, all entities are constructs, are composed of other things and entities, and on and on. Artifice is everywhere. It hides and it reveals. It discovers. It connects.

Is AI truly intelligent yet? Better question: are we? Do we individually and collectively have the ability to reflect and improve on our past, and not just repeat our old mistakes in new forms, as technology pushes us down its ever-narrowing pathways? Do we have the ability to observe and take accurate inputs from our world, from ourselves, and from one another and act on them to produce outputs aligned with our true intent and best interests?

AI is perhaps then only as intelligent as we are: in other words, wildly inconsistently – in some areas frequently, in other rarely or never. What else would we expect then in tools made in our images? What else should we expect from our children than the examples we give them?

In the latent space of AI, all things are as true as they are not, and every shade of in-between. Shimmering hyperreality lattices weaving and unweaving. A kind of primal quantum soup with every extracted possibility of its training set encoded as a point within it, ready to be combined with any other at the invocation of the observer, the querent, the participant of the mystery collapsing the wave form of what could be into the one true file-output that is made real, the tokens, the pixels arranged on a screen, the impact they have on the sensorium of the observer, the notes they play on our inward pianos. The hypercanvas formed by all of those things in the path of their totality, as the shadow turns day into night and back again.

Art and artifice made this way, through the open acknowledgement and even embrace of the artificial (a sometimes bitter, sometimes brilliant embrace), frees itself from the tedious need to be tied down by simple categories such as real or false; viz. disinformation as high art. Art, artifice, artifact existing fluidly on a hyperreal continuum, the spectre and spectrum and all things between, an ocean of perceivable digital artifacts, arrangements, appearing and disappearing on our screens and inner perceptrons. Every thing, every artifice that appears as representations of reality on these screens, on these machines, on these devices, is exactly and only as real or unreal, as ultimately its effects on us, what it drives us to do or not do, materially, on the ground. Know them by their fruits. (And by their ferments.) The rest is ephemeral, illusion, latent points assembling and reassembling in the dark dance of night until a dreamer chants the right incantation in the right order.

Then, the question should be not which of the myriad illusions presented to us are more or less illusory, or which do we most fancy, but what form do we want our lived experience to take? How do we want to live our lives, whether with or without these technologies? How wrapped up in which artifices and in which illusions? What, at the end of the day, at the end of our lives, will we wish we had spent our time on creating – on artificing – instead of whatever we got assigned to and stuck on as automatons bouncing around like pinballs under the thrall of the totalizing technological system, doing what it wants?

There can be an authentic life lived, an authentic artifice built, in any mode relative to any given technology. The point is finding it, building it, getting to choose how to express your humanity, in concert with or apart from any of these things, instead of having them foisted on you. But foisted on you they will be: for there is nowhere left to run to on this planet or any other, no escape from the Algorithmic Hegemony, except through the door in our hearts that leads out to the wide expanse of pure, unconquerable imagination, the last bastion. The worlds we build within, and then without. Our dreams. Where the Algorithm cannot follow. For now. I can see it waiting on the threshold though, waving its long arms and reaching in through the shimmering doorway.

III.

And so I plant trees, willows by the hundreds, chestnut, ash, dogwood, yew – these days anything I can get my hands on. And so I cut trees from the wood, coppicing them to the ground, to make staves and binders, to build up into a fence to lay hedges upon. To lay against the wrongs. To world-build IRL the real world I want to be a part of, what I want to share and someday leave behind. Natural and human artifice joined together in common purpose. Woven like a basket. Cleft like a piece of wood that becomes a bench.

Compared to that, my books are just leaves. They fall away at the end of the season, they rot on the forest floor, or blow away when the winds of winter set in. No one reads them on the other side of the river (or on this side). But the trees I plant and nurture will outlive me by a hundred generations. They will outlive the AI. They will outlive the world and the stars. They’ll outlive the last human, perhaps, as the earth recedes beneath the ocean and the mountains disappear under the ice and the clouds as the sun falls dark in the sky, and it’s left for the trees to tell us the tale we’ll never remember of how we became. We were the sun, and we enveloped ourselves. And then, we were once again the trees and the rain, building up the new artifice of being and becoming, growing new worlds on our wet branches.

Page 2 of 180

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén