61–70 of 73 posts
Squiggly lines and generative artifacts would match the story line of the season of "time slipping" however. If it is not AI, I can see a designer giving a Dali-like style for that reason.
This is ironic. If you had to pick a patron god of generative AI, it would definitely be Loki.
That was actually the plot of an old X-Men comic. Loki came to earth and started granting wishes. Basically turning regular people into Forge-style creative mutants. One was a master architect who gained the power to realize anything he dreamed of. But the X-Men later realize the gift is tainted; it's powered by human creativity. The architect discovers that while he can fabricate any structure he ever imagined, he c…
I don't need to come up with any new ideas. I would just hang out on Hackernews listening to ideas that I would then execute on.
We also have all the ideas we need to fix climate change, and world hunger, we just need execution.
I would gladly take the trade of executing on existing ideas, versus coming up with new ideas that we cannot execute on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The end game for AI generation technology is almost certainly not that it will pit studios and IP owners versus artists so much as it will pit artists versus artists. The copyright issues become moot once several companies pay a lifetimes fortune to a thousand or so artists for exclusive and complete rights to their collections to seed their algorithms. And I can't believe for a second that professional solidarity is…
> The copyright issues become moot once... Only some of the copyright issues. The issue of whether AI creations are protected by copyright, for example, would remain.
What's wrong with using generative AI?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was actually the plot of an old X-Men comic. Loki came to earth and started granting wishes. Basically turning regular people into Forge-style creative mutants. One was a master architect who gained the power to realize anything he dreamed of. But the X-Men later realize the gift is tainted; it's powered by human creativity. The architect discovers that while he can fabricate any structure he ever imagined, he c…
Seems… a little silly. I might be willing to trade my ability to generate new creative ideas for the ability to execute on all the creative ideas i have but cannot possibly implement due to time, resources, and talent constraints. Not being able to think creatively sounds scary but there’s also the alternative which is dying without doing things. Like, you could potentially make it a worse trade that sounds less scar…
Humans... So impossible to please.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was actually the plot of an old X-Men comic. Loki came to earth and started granting wishes. Basically turning regular people into Forge-style creative mutants. One was a master architect who gained the power to realize anything he dreamed of. But the X-Men later realize the gift is tainted; it's powered by human creativity. The architect discovers that while he can fabricate any structure he ever imagined, he c…
If I had this, I would be a billionaire. I don't need to come up with any new ideas. I would just hang out on Hackernews listening to ideas that I would then execute on. We also have all the ideas we need to fix climate change, and world hunger, we just need execution. I would gladly take the trade of executing on existing ideas, versus coming up with new ideas that we cannot execute on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The copyright issues become moot once... Only some of the copyright issues. The issue of whether AI creations are protected by copyright, for example, would remain.
If AI is cheap to use, that category of protection becomes irrelevant. A studio can crank out content so fast that it's irrelevant if someone else plagarizes, remixes, or reshares it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If AI is cheap to use, that category of protection becomes irrelevant. A studio can crank out content so fast that it's irrelevant if someone else plagarizes, remixes, or reshares it.
The studios will lobby heavily to prevent that. If content becomes that abundant how could they charge so much for it?
Long story short is that they played ball with every demand the recording industry made regarding how selling audio clips would work when other nascent music store experiments wouldn't. Industry gets to dictate quality? Got it. Online store releases after physical releases? Got it. Encrypted? Strongest stuff the government will let us put in.
And then one day... Apple just stopped selling the music encrypted. The recording industry had a bloody fit about it. And Apple's response was "Well, customers hate it. And honestly, who else will you do business with? You gave us all the contracts. What are you gonna do, found your own software companies from scratch to compete with us? If that was on the table you'd have done it already. You don't know how." It took a little while for streaming alternatives to crop up, but it was amazing to watch Apple call an entire industry's bluff.
All this to say... Wouldn't be the first time a content gatekeeping industry's myopia let it become the instrument of its own unmaking. People heavily invested in the old model have some of the hardest challenges fully realizing what new model novel technology can enable.
I predict the Disneys of the world will discover that their memetic monopolies become badly challenged in a world where content creation is so cheap that, while of course they can build their staple of wholly-owned IP for AI generation... So can everyone else, which means the shape of the competitive field will change, close to overnight. And if they try to compete by standing in front of the tide and bidding it to not come in, they'll eventually be cut down by someone who promises to give them everything they want... And then takes their empire from them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The studios will lobby heavily to prevent that. If content becomes that abundant how could they charge so much for it?
Mmmm. So I don't know how many people are old enough to remember the tale of how iTunes, for a short time, completely owned the music market. Long story short is that they played ball with every demand the recording industry made regarding how selling audio clips would work when other nascent music store experiments wouldn't. Industry gets to dictate quality? Got it. Online store releases after physical releases? Got…
Far too many people make their fortunes gatekeeping access to resources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
did you miss the part where Threads' feed algorithm is also "AI" as much as any other machine learning model is ? Human appreciation of art is linked to human creation of art and I think AI is going to show us that truth in new ways.
As a data scientist, no, I think that’s a dumb take. Without bothering to debate the definition of “AI”, One is a synthesis of general knowledge that can be used to generate new ideas. The other is a multi arm bandit and some collaborative filtering. Maybe there’s some AI there to classify what things are to begin with, but the decision of what to show is a very different kind of thing.