551–560 of 593 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you talked to "artists"? In my experience the vast majority say the opposite of what you worded here.
They are just gatekeeping and upset their skillet is devalued or completely trivialized which hurts both their pockets and ego.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The narrative/life of the artist becomes a lot more important. Less the narrative of the art's production and more the message that it's conveying. I don't mean (necessarily) a political message or a message that can be put in to words. But the abstract sense of connecting with the human who created it some way. This isn't just art though. An example: soon, Sora will be able to generate very convincing footage of a…
Football anime doesn’t involve real people or stakes. AI can introduce a storyline, characters, etc. It won't necessarily be as popular as the real sport but I doubt the audience is zero.
I don't mean to denigrate it though, what I'm saying is that media would be serving a totally different purpose than the one served by professional sport today.
I guess, people are very varied, there are probably SOME strange people who watch football today with a motivation that's compatible with AI.
Also, this doesn't mean AI football wouldn't be useless. And there could even be people who watch both, since they could scratch different itches. I said I "don't give a shit" about AI art but that's not really true, it's useful, I'm glad kebab shops get a cheap way to decorate their menus. I'm sure people are getting porn generated that matches their incredibly bizarre kinks and I'm glad they get to jerk off better than they used to.
But I guess what I really am sure of is that AI can't REPLACE human art any more than it can replace football.
I'm building my personal home right now. The AI image models have been a game-changer in designing the look of the house. My architect did an OK job, but the details that Nano Banana added really bring the house up a notch. I just do hundreds of renders from the basic 3D models and I find looks that I like and iterate from there. We are implementing the renders from Nano Banana over our Interior Designers designs. We…
If you can afford the extra cost for someone to figure out how to build the blue sky designs that nano banana spits out, maybe you can afford something more thoughtful and interesting than a shitty mashup of other peoples mcmansions.
Clearly i am triggered..
Some random predictions about what AI image generation tools will do/are doing to art: 1. The narrative/life of the artist becomes a lot more important. The most successful artists are ones that craft a story around their life and art, and don't just create stuff and stop. This will become even more important. 2. Originality matters more than ever. By design, these tools can only copy and mix things that already exis…
Furthermore, I think many of the more human centric thinkers will be disappointed at how many people just wont care.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>2. Originality matters more than ever. By design, these tools can only copy and mix things that already exist. But they aren't alive, they don't live in the world and have experiences, and they can't create something truly new. How can you say this? These models can trivially create things that have never existed, and you can easily test this yourself.
Should a randomly-shuffled deck of cards be considered art? After all, the card shuffling machine created something which statistically has never existed before. Every shuffled deck should belong in a museum, right? On the other hand, prompting AI for "pelican riding on a bicycle" clearly shows that it has far more trouble with unique concepts, compared to prompting for something more cookie-cutter.
Some random predictions about what AI image generation tools will do/are doing to art: 1. The narrative/life of the artist becomes a lot more important. The most successful artists are ones that craft a story around their life and art, and don't just create stuff and stop. This will become even more important. 2. Originality matters more than ever. By design, these tools can only copy and mix things that already exis…
2. Yes and no. Depending on how you train the model they can output things that you’ve never seen before but the question is whether you want to look at those things. So yes a human has to judge and fine tune the output. This is why many models seem unoriginal, they’re designed to emulate specific styles and tuned based on broad appeal. If you go looking for LoRAs and merges created by “artists” you will see shit you couldn’t dream of.
everything else probably yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you talked to "artists"? In my experience the vast majority say the opposite of what you worded here.
They are just gatekeeping and upset their skillet is devalued or completely trivialized which hurts both their pockets and ego.
If you like art, then you don't necessarily care about the process, you just want it to keep being produced. Artists obviously want to engage in their profession, because they have the passion to pursue the creation of art. Said passion is now twisted into gatekeeping.
When you take a look around the internet, you can see an incredible amount of beautiful art being made through manual processes by artists and they voluntarily publish a lot of their work for free. The cost and personal enrichment argument is pretty weak here. If anything, the causality could even go in the opposite direction: Artists might want to earn money to pursue their passion.
Let's be honest for a second here. It's legitimate to feel that human created art is expensive and cost prohibitive for your particular needs. Art for professional or personal purposes is usually commissioned, aka made to order, hence it cannot be a mass market commodity.
These manual processes are also inherently limited due to the fact that the entire scene (character, outfit, pose, lighting, perspective) is baked in. If there is a process that doesn't have this limitation that's great, but if the lifting of limitations in one area isn't enough to counteract the loss in quality in other areas that the manual process didn't use to run into? Suddenly that is gate keeping even though the issue at hand is that the quality isn't good enough yet?
There's also an obvious parallel to frameworks and libraries in software development. If the software ecosystem lacks flexibility and customizability or has the wrong abstraction for the problem at hand, you will need to drop down a layer and do things the old fashioned way. A manual artist can produce a character template, a set of clothes or a background design from scratch and combine it with the higher level tools. An AI-only artist is inherently limited in that regard and yet that's supposed to be the future?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not understanding how consciousness is created doesn't make it divine. Do you think it's an impossible task or just one we need more time to figure out?
Being alive is divine. It doesn't matter if you understand it or not. It's a beautiful thing to have a consciousness in this world, and to have the ability to create, to love. It takes a huge intellectual effort to try to trick yourself out of believing something so intuitive as that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not understanding how consciousness is created doesn't make it divine. Do you think it's an impossible task or just one we need more time to figure out?
Physicalists say consciousness emerges from matter. The other camp says matter comes from consciousness. Federico Faggin, inventor of the microprocessor, says consciousness cannot emerge from matter because matter is inert and not self-conscious, so it cannot produce consciousness. Who’s right and who’s wrong? Time will tell. But it is also wrong to claim that consciousness emerges from matter until it is proven (aka…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can't know if consciousness emerges but does it actually matter ? These entities, whoever they are, they act on our world, they are real, and more and more over time they will get independent from humans, eventually becoming different species that can self-replicate. For now they need legs and arms to interact with the physical world but I am certain that 100 years from now they will be an integral part of the soc…
>>These entities, whoever they are, they act on our world, they are real, and more and more over time they will get independent from humans, eventually becoming different species that can self-replicate. See, I don't believe that for even one second. They are just very clever calculators, that's all. But they are also dumb like a brick most of the time. It's a pretend intelligence at best.