191–200 of 415 posts
How do you get a layer of butter on your kitchen ? Not a native English speaker so maybe this sounds natural to people - but to me it sounds like bad wording. It paints the wrong picture and is not kids friendly wording IMO.
What about it seems “not kids friendly” to you? I don’t see the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a person learns how to paint expertly by looking at (and even copying, stroke for stroke) paintings, would you consider that immoral, and those paintings having been stolen? If not, what would you say the difference is?
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.
I think you might be in trouble there, a number of savants have been known throughout history who have been able to learn various things with no instruction and simply by hearing or seeing a work done by someone else have been able to recreate it or produce something in their style.
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.
If a person learns how to paint expertly by looking at (and even copying, stroke for stroke) paintings, would you consider that immoral, and those paintings having been stolen? If not, what would you say the difference is?
* (Currently) Most AI generated images have an aesthetic to them, so it's easy to spot sometimes. Typically low-res, smeared details, bad hands/body horror. This may improve over time, but I don't know how I'd feel ethically (both morally and in work/effort) leaning so hard on AI.
* For me at least, as soon as I learn something creative is completely (or mostly) AI generated I lose all interest in engaging with the content beyond surface-level consumption. I think fundamentally AI generated creative works are banal and will age horribly over time.
Honestly I think it would be much better to buy a nice paperback kid's book made by a human as a gift for your friend's kid. They'll love it and the kid will have a connection with a human author and artist.
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.
At best you could claim “pirated”, definitely not “stolen”. IMO piracy should be morally encouraged
Leaving aside the creepiness factor, I wonder what confusion will be sown in young minds by the inevitable onslaught of machine-generated children's content.
I keep coming back to the fact that these technologies enable people to create simulacrums of high quality content quickly - but that shows because of the obvious short comings as identified by other posters. If I gave myself a week to write a children's book using these tools with a human editor loop - could I create (or perhaps someone more talented) a great book? That seems possible. This seems like it was created…
I'm really not looking forward to the same thing happening with blog posts, news articles, or books. Not like there is just quality content out there at the moment.
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.
If it works, it'll be used. Are you grossed out when using a calculator? I hope so
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The people who wrote the Photoshop source code were paid for their contributions with full consent that their work would be included in the product and sold for a profit by Adobe. The artists whose work was fed into these systems did not consent, nor were they paid for their contribution. In fact, I have seen a few reports of people using these systems to generate lookalike artworks intended to resemble the work of s…
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.
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 they haven't even been paid for that "privilege".
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.
All advances in creative tooling are automating creativity. What are you on about? Look at photoshop color selector automates mixing paint, digital filters for audio automate analog mixers. This attitude towards AI creative tools is gatekeeping.
Saying that I agree with you in that I see this technology as a tool that can be used by humans to make amazing things. No one really has yet as the outputs have just been blunted, sloppy things. But if I’m an artist I see these tools as the latest tool to help make things.