scoobdog

Do you have one of those fancy desktop radio scanners?

Just a warning, don't use speech to text for your original idea. Not even joking with that - have a computer sanitize your voice takes that voice away.

It's a problem that ultimately solves itself. Art is above all else a form of communication; regardless of how beautiful, ugly, plain, confusing it might be, the ultimate point is to say something. For instance, is AI art all that much worse than a Thomas Kincaide painting or, God forbid, a Bob Ross painting? We might be trained by the relentless media exposure, particularly of the latter, of how we're supposed to feel about the work, but in either case the work itself is generic, fairly easily produced, and says very little beyond whatever nostalgia you as the viewer project on to it. In fact, Bob Ross's work is more about the cult of personality surrounding the man himself and largely built up by his successors who were trying to build an image they could sell. Of course, we would never diminish the work either Kincaide or Ross put into their painting by saying its AI could do the same. At the same time, we're also not going to get much more out of the paintings than a reasonable facsimile made by a random guy on the internet, not like we might by looking at a DaVinci (overrated as those may be). What these AI using fools aren't getting is that the real charm in whatever they create is what it says about them and what they think. I'll be the first to admit that my visual artwork isn't groundbreaking or special. It just reflects how I see my subjects. If I'm doing a newsletter graphic for a special event I'm covering at the beach, the design is innocuous but it uses colors and shapes that reflect how I might see the sun setting on the ocean. I put effort into my landscape photos that take into account not just perspective on the subject, but all the peripheral spaces that inform on that subject. Ultimately more people will not particularly care about any of that and just look at the image for what it is, but I will still reach at least someone who appreciates what they're seeing. If It were an AI image, than the pretty picture will reach nobody, and, if that image is presented as traditional but is later found to be AI, then the artist completely destroys they're ability to create art in perpetuity. There just isn't a way to make AI generated content mean something. Ultimately, the artists that use AI get nothing out of it.

Just the thought of that pisses me off.

It tried sending me to California Post... I think the machines are on to you.

As a graphic designer and photographer, I can both see the benefit of AI assisted work and be offended at the lack of pride that comes with not creating an image at every step. It kind of goes with my generations diatribe form the other thread: there's a distinction that comes from using AI as machine learning versus AI for content generation. AI as we know it is supposed to be machine learning at its finest, sacrificing a bit of control to automate repetitive and time consuming menial tasks. Generating content, even something as non-offensive as a throw away meme, creates an existential problem with the medium. I wouldn't waste time cutting and pasting a photo of Trump on Suge Knights body either because its hardly worth the effort to make a joke that could be made in the thirty or so seconds it takes to write a witty post. At the same time, generating the pic, even with my own caption, means less because its a computer interpreting what I'm trying to express in a way that is, at best, a better version of what I would have come up with myself. The fact that it actually looks good is itself the problem; we're breaking a barrier where the machine stops being a tool and starts being an extension of our thought process. Losing out on the many skills that came with "growing up" on relatively antiquated desktop computers has opened the door for things like this to happen.

Didn’t get away with blasting AC/DC’s “Hells Bells” at a nunnery…. and has multiple awkward hickeys to prove it.

Not reading this thread, so…. Does JK Rowling count as an old Universal Studios monster?

Sold TAO a tennis racket that he claims he bought from Coco Gauff after she smashed in a locker room but he actually bought at a yard sale,

Tried to rescue Mr Hoonie from Scoob and Kuds; ended up in Fargo out in a field in his underwear with a Hefty trash bag (the ransom was specific) full of Monopoly $100s.

Everyone knows you don’t crack on the Jets until you’re holding the Lombardi. Dude was asking to lose.

Gave false information to an anonymous tip line, then kidnapped Mr. Hoonie.

I have. I made you a snow cone, Ghosty.

Has his photo up at every fast food drive up in Fallon, Nevada.

What did Davonte say? I don’t really care because I’m just happy to see Sammy D going to the SB, just curious.