211–220 of 415 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is the notable difference in the speed and scale at which a computer can be trained. The analogy doesn't really hold up in my opinion.
So the analogy doesn't hold up because computer does it more efficiently?
Expecting the “Made by humans” stickers and labeling any day now. As AI generated content becomes mainstream, we’ll see product labeling like we do with organic produce to differentiate the source.
I hate this so very much. Automating creativity is so gross. Never mind the fact that these models are trained on stolen artwork and texts.
Thinking more deeply, I find that AI art has no real value to me, though. I wouldn't hang it on my walls or hope it survives for my kids. If I had written the algorithms that power the model, then I'd feel like more of a stakeholder and maybe I would see the output as something with long term value. To me it feels more like fast food. It fills the void, but it's nothing special-- it's disposable 'art'. But maybe that's just me.
There is a market, at least within south east asia, that mass produces stories like aesop's fables, and regional folklore. The books produced are thin 2minute reads and are available for purchase for less than 1 USD usually. It's not surprising to see grammatical and spelling errors slip into the prints of some of these books. The artwork is basic and while stylistically more consistent than OP's effort, it's entirel…
I fully expect that any kind of content store (Amazon books, podcasts, audio books, newspapers, news sites, social media) will be absolutely overrun with generated word soup trying to scam people out of a few bucks - e.g. just like YouTube is overrun with autogenerated creepy children videos. Whether having to sift through massive amount of trash to get anything created with some quality is a good or a bad thing... d…
I hate this so very much. Automating creativity is so gross. Never mind the fact that these models are trained on stolen artwork and texts.
Don't take this as a trolling question, but I can't help but wonder if this sentiment towards AI generated art and creativity is similar to how a chef might feel about shrink wrapped frozen food factories. Just like how a frozen meal can be thrown in the microwave and still be considered a meal, AI generated art can still be considered creative and beautiful. But, as we all know, the timing and execution to properly…
Art is just something we do and consume for fun. We don't need to make art more efficient, because there is already too much art to consume in a lifetime. Also there is no requirement to consume as much art as possible. And automating art making means that there will be even more average art that anyone interested will have to sift through to find something nice.
Overall all of this effort could be put into automating something that will make everyday life easier, like if you want to make art more accessible then for example automate translations so we can read books or watch movies that we previously couldn't.
[Edit: a word]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But a kid won't be able to, and if they can they won't be able to articulate whats wrong with it. From the perspective of anyone going into AI, that makes children the perfect target for the mass produced blended garbage that AI generates.
What elevates a human story higher than ChatGPT's? Do our brains have some hidden trascendental property that LLMs can never get to? Or is it simply our own biases once we learn that this is the product of an algorithm rather than human-made?
This is a serious question.
Does anyone here really think that AI will produce a new "Jungle Book" by Kipling or a new "Mona Lisa" by Da Vinci or a new "Requiem" by Mozart" which could even have a remote possibility of becoming cultural icon and reference? And is that a goal or event that the spectators are waiting for? And if it occurs what would it infer about human cultural evolution?
This is really just a dumb question. These are tools, like paintbrushes and paint software. Any idiot can put paint on a canvas. Any idiot can make doodles in GIMP. Any idiot can write a prompt. None of these statements say anything about the upper bound of creative potential for any of these tools. The fact that a creative work could be summoned deterministically from a seed in an embedding space is irrelevant. And no, we shouldn't put old works on a pedestal. Note that your examples are basically all pre-digital.
These are not sentient AI. These are tools used by humans. And you can't judge tools' potential by the least competent users, the average user, or even the best users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Be real, copyright/attribution is only one complaint, a tiny part of the sudden hatred against AI art/creativity. When somebody brings up the invention of photoshop, they're not trying to disprove a point about paying salaries to the devs, and I am sure you knew that.
> Be real, copyright/attribution is only one complaint, a tiny part of the sudden hatred against AI art/creativity. When the artists whose work was stolen to train these models are compensated for that work then maybe its a "tiny part". Until then it is taking peoples work and using it to create an ultimate competitor in their own market that they cannot compete with. They now have to compete against themselves and t…