⭐️ RXALITI ⭐️ Excited to announce all the details for RXALITI, a twin/continual body of work to Realiti—the first AI art on Ethereum with its own smart contract [May, 2019] 🌐 Here’s everything you need to know about the minting process and its conceptual framework. 🧵

We must call out the misuse of A.I., no matter its messaging, or we risk losing a hold on reality. - ScarJo Lost Realiti >

For the bunch of people who DM'ed asking which project I meant: just use 'Inspect' tool of a browser and you'll see the website doesn't work like it says it does.

I don't agree with this critique in it's entirety but I blame the artists for not criticially engaging with the medium they use, short-term hype makers tricking the artists ending up with a shallow sense of ego, and the the curators more.

Nailed on the last part. And more in general it's sad to see how the entire space is shooting themselves in the foot. Instead of engaging with just a bit more intellectual engagement and long-term curatorial, financial planning it's easier to run an army of X bots and quick money.

@perezfecto @ClaireSilver12 This <3

@HvnsLstAngel I agree. Even though they made a weak argument against the auction, this was the start of the swing.

@camolNFT i'm recruiting and we're on it

@TheNorwegianNFT @memitations Good day and I agree on that! 🫡

<<3333 thank you so much 🥰😭 Yea I agree, for NFTs I have full confidence to be fair, so fingers crossed for Realiti / RXALITI too. Since I refused to join the alliance around 2020, things haven't went smoothly must confess and doing this my way proven to be a bit harder than I imagined but at least I found a way to have fun and it's just getting started 🥰 Can you please DM me your wallet?

Likewise! Ah, I mean that within this context and argument today. On this particular debate, no one made against a case against the nature of AI art. Plus, there'll always be those people who argue that, I'm sure there even still are who'd say photography still isn't but all this is just a matter of time and falling back to this debate looks weak, almost as if misleading the argument to a broader issue on purpose, instead of taking a step back [imagine a PR agency] and reassess the modes of operation in the space. To me this analogy dates back to the earliest days of AI, I particularly remember Blaise Agüera y Arcas drawing the analogy to print, photography etc. I don't think the space isn't doing a good job educating people on this either but that's another topic 🥰

@petrdu @DeepBlackAI Thank you, where do you think Realiti will be in a year? I feel it'll always be a hidden gem with no breakthrough bc I'm too lazy to create an army of bot accounts.

Oi, AI art heretic Atay here. Beautifully written <3 I, like anyone else around, completely disagree with the critique and reasoning behind canceling the auction, but I wanted to approach it from an angle I feel very few have considered. Also, I love your work and everything you’ve done for the community—wish I could say the same for myself, but I’ve always felt like an outsider. That said, I have to admit there’s a part of me that finds it disappointing to see AI art being defended by comparing it to photography. At this point, I don’t think anyone is fundamentally against AI art or the use of AI in its entirety, don't think that even though their argument was super weak, it was about all this. Whenever there’s a meaningful critique, it’s usually about a specific aspect of it. The "no skill" debate should feel outdated by now. So, I wanted to ask you one key question—coming from an ex-AI lecturer with an additional master’s in PR <3—beyond this space and bubble, given all the media attention and how it shaped public perception, did any of the (often meaningful and correct) responses from the community actually reach beyond itself? I keep seeing people claim this was good promo for AI art, and perhaps from the likes of you, through certain media coverage, it was. But for the general public? I’m pretty sure it made sense exactly as they saw it. So, I’ve been wondering: How did the way researchers, curators, and artists have presented their work over the past few years—often exaggerating, romanticizing, avoiding critical engagement, and fueling the hype cycle—contribute to this backlash? Even though I agree with most people in this space, I can see how this minor and silly pushback could have been avoided. To me, this space is still making the same short-term mistakes, using ridicule as a shield while none of the counterarguments from the community actually penetrate the broader digital psyche. Also, I’ve been thinking about the nature of influence as you put it. Back when I was lecturing, I used AlphaGo’s Move 37 as an example of AI generating true "novelty" beyond its training. So, I feel the key word here isn’t "new," it’s "novel." AI collaboration was absolutely possible, and as you pointed out, it’s not just mashing things up at a high level, it's way more poetic than that. But influence, I think, is a different concept. For example, if I were making a pop album, subconscious hip-hop influences might bleed in, but the way neural networks pick up on low- and high-level concepts, then generate based on prompts or stochastic randomness, feels fundamentally different. And I don't think skill was never really the barrier—most renowned artists aren’t known for being traditionally "skilled" in the way people typically define it, but rather for being clever, expressive, or able to pass on ideas in a compelling way. For instance, there isn’t much "skill" behind Fountain, yet its impact is undeniable.

@DeepBlackAI Indeed ser 🏓 🥰

@eli_schein @halecar2 @hudsonsims Does neither have the ability/option or even a way to improve in a way it can decide not to produce anything?

5/ ✨ [BONUS] One interesting case study to read about Copyright & AI is from a legal battle, read here. The Great AI Copyright Debate: The "Salad vs. Muffin"