Is AI Art good or bad?

[Raptorpat]

 

[SwimModSponges]

Well that falls directly under point #1- all technological advances under a capitalist system suck because people's jobs are replaced by machines which are cheaper and more efficient. 

Thats an issue with a backwards society though. Can't improve because we rely on struggling in order to make profits. And you opened this beast back up i see.

Want to share your own views?

[Raptorpat]

Assuming for the sake of the discussion that AI art is art because that question is irrelevant to my direction of thought, I think there's a very concrete difference between automating physical labor and automating creative expression that you seem to not find. 

Like I think you're kind of devaluing the creation of art solely because the artists may earn an income selling their work. Basically that it's no different than replacing ditch-diggers with backhoes and replacing lever-pullers with an automated assembly line. Just the next step. But creative expression is a whole different ballpark for all reasons previously discussed, like for one, it's not just about income (even if it is a factor). It's about ownership and control, for example, from which income derives. I'm not going to find the post, but you were pretty dismissive of that (while basically conceding the point) with a comment somewhere saying something like "well you can't really expect them to ask permission" - but like that's like the whole game right there. Art isn't inherently public domain. Like take for example what's going on with Toonami where someone submitted an artist's work from behind a paywall so the lawyers had to shut the whole thing down. It's wasn't an AI issue, but it's certainly an ownership and control issue.

Imagine if an AI read all of your fanfics and was able to perfectly replicate your style and continue your stories in an authentic manner, but you had no say in the matter. You might think that's cool and you get to put your feet up and see where your story goes next. But you were never notified, you never had the choice to provide consent, and you were never compensated. But now instead of you writing stupid fanfics for laughs, it's someone whose not just their income, but their whole persona and reason are wrapped around the things they create.

 

 

And then on a separate tangent, there's just certain things that probably shouldn't be automated or handed away to AI like on a philosophical level. Like imagine if we set up a bot that posted new episode discussion threads in Toonami every week. That's fine, it's a thing you can see elsewhere like on reddit. It's efficient and it saves one guy a lot of time. But then there's bots on reddit for example that repost popular content and even reposts replies within threads. I don't even like browsing reddit anymore because I don't know what's real and what's reposted. Now imagine the step beyond that, where bots aren't reposting - they're synthesizing everything and creating their own posts, and then having actual conversations. I sure as hell don't want to have to question whether the person replying to me is an actual person or not. That's the point where I'm done with the internet. Obviously posting on the internet and creating art are two entirely separate categories, but just philosophically I have limits. Like what are your opinions on deepfakes or even "synthetic" personas?

 

idk I'm rambling and overtired, but I just feel like when you boil this whole thread down, the conflict comes from your dismissing artists to their own faces.

[SwimModSponges]

3 hours ago, Raptorpat said:

Assuming for the sake of the discussion that AI art is art because that question is irrelevant to my direction of thought, I think there's a very concrete difference between automating physical labor and automating creative expression that you seem to not find. There is very much a difference there and I accept that.

Like I think you're kind of devaluing the creation of art solely because the artists may earn an income selling their work. Basically that it's no different than replacing ditch-diggers with backhoes and replacing lever-pullers with an automated assembly line. Just the next step. But creative expression is a whole different ballpark for all reasons previously discussed, like for one, it's not just about income (even if it is a factor). It's about ownership and control, for example, from which income derives. I'm not going to find the post, but you were pretty dismissive of that (while basically conceding the point) with a comment somewhere saying something like "well you can't really expect them to ask permission" - but like that's like the whole game right there. Art isn't inherently public domain. Like take for example what's going on with Toonami where someone submitted an artist's work from behind a paywall so the lawyers had to shut the whole thing down. It's wasn't an AI issue, but it's certainly an ownership and control issue.

This is veering into point #4- the "art is theft". The images the AIs were trained on were public domain. It goes really in depth in the 1.5 hour long video I posted, but that specific (out of context) comment of mine actually points to something I was wrong about and learned from the video: dude trained an AI using ONLY images he had taken, and ONLY like 30 of them. AI still made some incredibly different and varied images. But yeah, the images the AI makers received for training were fully within public domain.

Imagine if an AI read all of your fanfics and was able to perfectly replicate your style and continue your stories in an authentic manner, but you had no say in the matter. You might think that's cool and you get to put your feet up and see where your story goes next. But you were never notified, you never had the choice to provide consent, and you were never compensated. But now instead of you writing stupid (that's hurtful) fanfics for laughs, it's someone whose not just their income, but their whole persona and reason are wrapped around the things they create.

You can't copyright "style", which if that's not a slogan for something it really should be- I'm going to copyright it. Actual copyright laws and fair use are another thing the feller went into deep. Legally it's in the clear; and not just like "technically legal", it's fully legal, has been forever, and you can point to probably millions of examples through history of people "stealing" others styles without consent, notification, or compensation. I mean literally all fan-art, but it goes back thousands and thousands of years with specific examples shown in the video. That's humans, this is automated you say, but the law makes no distinction for level of skill. Say somebody studies for decades and matches their prose almost exactly with Stephen King (except the hands, they always fuck up the hands). Johnny law coming knocking on their door? Heck, what if somebody whipped up an AI that did exactly that and busted out a bunch of Steven-King-quality romance novels? Fuck, they'd make a million dollars. Dude why am I not just closing the thread and doing that right now? Oh yeah, not smart enough. Anyways. Insofar as persona and reason, I understand that argument and the feelings behind it, and I acknowledge those feelings as valid, but I have to approach the issue as this- does fan art devalue original art? I don't believe it does. I can't paint and honestly I can barely write- went back through those fanfictions just the other night actually, and boy howdy. So I'mma supplant this on something I'm passionate about. Eating pussy Brewing. Actually that's gonna be kind of a difficult comparison I think but we'll try. So ok, imagine for a minute that I got my brewery up off its feet, I got my recipes, I'm brewing, really feeling it. Well, somebody whips  up a machine to analyze all sortsa mead flavors and synthesize up some new ones by detecting patterns in the flavor profiles. Well somebody synthesizes a flavor I didn't, in my style. Like my spring mix only they fucked the hands up. I mean that's cool as hell with me. I mean there are only so many ingredients you can put into mead and half of them are right there in the name of the brew, but sure, say somebody figures out my secret ingredient(s) and makes it with bananna instead of honeydew. And adds sprite. And probably sodium metabisulfite since it's synthetic and all. AND IT KEEPS FUCKING UP THE HANDS. Like I said I don't know how well this comparison works so... Ok, main thrust- If you get satisfaction from pouring yourself into something, the operant parts are your "self" and the "thing". Any other individual's actions should not come into play in that operation. Of course there is critiquing and perception etc. but those are all tangential equations- positive ones, in that your "self" poured into the "thing" was seen as positive by others and worthy of emulation. If I took an incredible photograph that meant a lot to me, I wouldn't mind if people went to that exact spot at that time of day and with those weather conditions to take essentially the same photo. I mean how many pictures of the moon we got these days? Backyard astronomers are still just happy as hell to get a beautiful clear shot. And I'm sorry if that sounds demeaning- comparing artists to people who take pictures of the stars and whatnot. I mean I don't know what comparisons are fair here you guys.

And then on a separate tangent, there's just certain things that probably shouldn't be automated or handed away to AI like on a philosophical level. Like imagine if we set up a bot that posted new episode discussion threads in Toonami every week. That's fine, it's a thing you can see elsewhere like on reddit. It's efficient and it saves one guy a lot of time. But then there's bots on reddit for example that repost popular content and even reposts replies within threads. I don't even like browsing reddit anymore because I don't know what's real and what's reposted. Now imagine the step beyond that, where bots aren't reposting - they're synthesizing everything and creating their own posts, and then having actual conversations. I sure as hell don't want to have to question whether the person replying to me is an actual person or not. That's the point where I'm done with the internet. Obviously posting on the internet and creating art are two entirely separate categories, but just philosophically I have limits. Like what are your opinions on deepfakes or even "synthetic" personas?

Have you ever seen the movie "Her" with Joaquin Phoenix? I don't want to give away too much for folks who haven't seen it, but I often think about the dude's job in the beginning insofar as how it relates to things as simple as predictive text when you're messaging someone you love. Just watch the movie man, it's great. Real talk though- I mean, the internet is sort of where robots live, so it's kind of insensitive to freak out when you realize you're talking to one. Hell,  I've just been "assuming" y'all were robots since I got here in '07, helped with the crippling social anxiety. I mean if you really need to talk to a human they're out there. They're fucking assholes but they're out there.
 

 

idk I'm rambling and overtired, but I just feel like when you boil this whole thread down, the conflict comes from your dismissing artists to their own faces.

My intention was never to dismiss artists, and I understand that intention means nothing when compared against the real harm statements cause. I am deeply pained by the fact that I hurt artists. I have nothing but respect for the people who have put in the time and dedication required to master their craft; I believe they are incredible and exemplary human beings. I also believe that everyone has within them the capacity for artistic thought but not the means, time, or level of dedication to see their thoughts through. And I'm sorry but that's what I see in AI. Does it's ease of use cheapen the dedication needed to master the works that came before it? No, of course not. No more than the millions of Van Gough's Starry Night depictions made in photoshop or paint  devalue the original painting. Artists- I am not dismissing you. You are beautiful and amazing and I love you all. 

I'm only giving one reply per night you guys this shit is real tense.

[Raptorpat]

12 minutes ago, SwimModSponges said:

But yeah, the images the AI makers received for training were fully within public domain.

All the AI makers? Some of them? If they weren't, would that be bad?

15 minutes ago, SwimModSponges said:

Legally it's in the clear; and not just like "technically legal", it's fully legal, has been forever

So one of the points I'd make is that legality and ethics/morality are two different things.

One of the tangents I could have gone on re: deepfakes is that this technology advances way faster than the law can account for it. If the legislature hasn't figured out what to do with it and hasn't banned or regulated it, it's legal to deepfake someone without their consent but that doesn't answer whether it's good or bad to do that. 

I could also raise a parallel to demonstrate how algorithms and AI can take something and put it into an entirely different category. So take political gerrymandering for example. Perfectly legal federally and in most states. Legislators would draw districts by hand based on census data to their advantage. Sometime it would work, sometimes it would backfire, other times it was a wash. But now we have the technology to set parameters for a computer to absolutely min/max every district to virtually guarantee every result. It's still the same, legal gerrymandering, but is it really the same when you get down to it? So like, even if it is legally indistinguishable, is it really the same to have someone train extensively to emulate your style versus teaching an AI to do it instantaneously?

 

[GunStarHero]

Sponges you are the most tone deaf motherfucker I have ever encountered and I am quite positive part of this is some weird ass shtick you're doing to either drive up interactions with your posts or to stroke your ego. Everything you type sounds like a bunch of patronizing half concessions at best and a mound of text-based jackassery at worst. Now grab some bit of my post to feign dunking on (I have underlined it already for your convenience) and ignore the overall message while patting me on the head with your benign ass arguments. What's the problem with AI Art? Humans. 

[Raptorpat]

3 hours ago, SwimModSponges said:

Real talk though- I mean, the internet is sort of where robots live, so it's kind of insensitive to freak out when you realize you're talking to one. Hell,  I've just been "assuming" y'all were robots since I got here in '07, helped with the crippling social anxiety. I mean if you really need to talk to a human they're out there. They're fucking assholes but they're out there.

I didn't hit this in my original reply I don't think but like wait what?

Is that your genuine position on social engagement? (I'm not critiquing the underlying social anxiety because birds of a feather etc.) Is the foundational principal that people are assholes and engaging with bots is equal if not better?

Because if so, that probably 100% explains the values disconnect here.

[André Toulon]

Tldr: by jove, I've got it....movie epiphany 

Well, since this is open again I can just present this. One of sponge's things, for as long as I've been on the boards, has been this weird acceptance of the computers and robots ruling us.  Which I never took literally, like a skynet thing, but metaphorically...like we just become completely dependent on them.  Although he would say things like he can't wait to upload himself into a robot or something and live forever. It seemed innocent at first but much like many of these personas we create for the Internet, they evolve....sometimes more in our heads than in the hearts of others.  

I say this from an anecdotal standpoint because once I started using cyberbully, which was a joke from asmb when someone (I think tampon but it was one of babblings meanies) called me a cyberbully as a joke....it kinda got out of hand and I started catching bans...so I got worse, because I was married to the concept....but before I go deeper down that hole, sponges.

All of this is to say, I still think this is a shtick that he's lost control of....he replies like a crass, condescending bot because it's how he thinks a robot that runs completely on logic would apologize to it's "humans" for finding a more efficient and quality way of doing things all while explains why it's right and why we can't comprehend the reasoning.

I know this might come off long-winded and scoobish but I'm baked and I just watched M3gan and came to make my review but I was browsing during the movie and this notion simmered in my head while I was watching it and I wanted to type it before I forgot.

Edited January 10, 2023 by André Toulon

[SwimModSponges]

All right. Shit. Time for tonight's reply.

21 hours ago, Raptorpat said:

All the AI makers? Some of them? If they weren't, would that be bad?

Yes, to the best of my knowledge. I'm confused by the last part because I'm honestly not that great at understanding things. "If they(images?) were not (in the public domain?) would that be bad?" Well, if the images were not used legally in accordance with the fair use conditions in copyright law, then yes, that would be bad. But copyright law from everything I've seen comes down squarely in favor of all of this being legitimate fair use.

So one of the points I'd make is that legality and ethics/morality are two different things.

Legality is the process by which we codify and enforce the morals of society. 

One of the tangents I could have gone on re: deepfakes is that this technology advances way faster than the law can account for it. If the legislature hasn't figured out what to do with it and hasn't banned or regulated it, it's legal to deepfake someone without their consent but that doesn't answer whether it's good or bad to do that. 

*checks laws* It's illegal to photoshop somebody without their consent, so yes, deep fakes have a precedent for illegality. Bad. Also intent comes directly into question here; someone using unconsenting deepfakes would likely be violating other laws as well. On the topic of that  technology though- one of the latest things they've been working on is reducing the amount of data transfer required during video calls by literally only recording the first couple seconds of video so the algorithm understands your movement patterns when speaking, then completing the rest of the call with an entirely AI generated persona. Shit that one blew my mind when I first heard of it.

I could also raise a parallel to demonstrate how algorithms and AI can take something and put it into an entirely different category. So take political gerrymandering for example. Perfectly legal federally and in most states. Legislators would draw districts by hand based on census data to their advantage. Sometime it would work, sometimes it would backfire, other times it was a wash. But now we have the technology to set parameters for a computer to absolutely min/max every district to virtually guarantee every result. Or AI can be used to detect illegal partisan gerrymandering and have it struck down, as it did in North Carolina in 2019.  It's still the same, legal gerrymandering, but is it really the same when you get down to it?  No, it has the opportunity to be more transparent and equitable than the current system. Coulda sworn I saw on the news somebody already tried to use AI to gerrymander min-max based on race- think it was 2020, southern state, probably. I mean i realize that statement inspires no confidence in its claim, so disregard if you like, but AI gerrymandering's a horse that done bolted. Now here's the thing. AI can be programmed by assholes to do bad shit, but AI can also be programmed to gerrymander on an actual equitable level. The reason I couldn't find the exact  story I was thinking of when I searched  for it  was because almost every piece was in praise of the equity a properly-generated AI gerrymadering offered. So like, even if it is legally indistinguishable, is it really the same to have someone train extensively to emulate your style versus teaching an AI to do it instantaneously? I want to say yes there is a difference but not in a moral or legal manner. I would be more impressed by the actual human taking the time and dedication to emulate my style but I would also think an AI trained to emulate my style instantly was really cool.

 

 

19 hours ago, Raptorpat said:

I didn't hit this in my original reply I don't think but like wait what? That's how I getcha!

Is that your genuine position on social engagement? (I'm not critiquing the underlying social anxiety because birds of a feather etc.)  Is the foundational principal that people are assholes and engaging with bots is equal if not better? Not gonna lie, it was in '07. I've grown  as a person of course, and I now love all humans unconditionally as my brothers and sisters in Time. But for real though- the internet is where the robots live. You're afraid of communicating with one without knowing it when I'm betting you already have. No I'm not saying I'm a  robot, I'm saying AI is a lot  further along  than most people realize and it's just getting faster. Let's get back to that movie I mentioned, "Her", which is an excellent watch by the way you really should see it. The last scene of the movie is incredibly poignant, when the main character and his neighbor come out of their houses and just look at the night  sky together. Together. Goddamn I think that's missing in our lives, I was reading about the death of the "third place" the other day- well shit, this is all tangential. Our society needs to get more comfortable touching one another on a wholistic level. But the internet is where the robots live. Don't freak out if you run into one.

Because if so, that probably 100% explains the values disconnect here. 

 

17 hours ago, André Toulon said:

Tldr: by jove, I've got it....movie epiphany 

Well, since this is open again I can just present this. One of sponge's things, for as long as I've been on the boards, has been this weird acceptance of the computers and robots ruling us.  Which I never took literally, like a skynet thing, but metaphorically...like we just become completely dependent on them.  Although he would say things like he can't wait to upload himself into a robot or something and live forever. It seemed innocent at first but much like many of these personas we create for the Internet, they evolve....sometimes more in our heads than in the hearts of others.  Ok, first off, yes, I do believe it would be beneficial for human kind to -in the future- delegate a lions share of the executive functions of its governance to learning algorithms. I mean  they've already run simulations of it and managed  to get an incredibly equitable and efficiently run society out of the whole deal. The uploading to a robot body was '07 + way too much Ghost in the Shell porn. I've grown as a human being, I like to think.

I say this from an anecdotal standpoint because once I started using cyberbully, which was a joke from asmb when someone (I think tampon but it was one of babblings meanies) called me a cyberbully as a joke....it kinda got out of hand and I started catching bans...so I got worse, because I was married to the concept....but before I go deeper down that hole, sponges. Zing!

All of this is to say, I still think this is a shtick that he's lost control of....he replies like a crass, condescending bot because it's how he thinks a robot that runs completely on logic would apologize to it's "humans" for finding a more efficient and quality way of doing things all while explains why it's right and why we can't comprehend the reasoning. I reply like a crass, condescending human, because I believe very strongly in the convictions which I am arguing here, and the only thing I've ever apologized for is being a prick. Because I'm a prick. I'm sorry I'm a goddamn prick. Fuck. Anyways.

I know this might come off long-winded and scoobish but I'm baked and I just watched M3gan and came to make my review but I was browsing during the movie and this notion simmered in my head while I was watching it and I wanted to type it before I forgot.

 

[scoobdog]

It is unlocked!  Strange.

[cyberbully]

14 hours ago, scoobdog said:

It is unlocked!  Strange.

I'm not sure why it was locked to begin with....At first I thought sponges might have requested it because he was getting exasperated, but then I realized it's not even his thread.....Pat unloked it to comment, so while i assume he's the one that locked it, I don't think he'd have a reaason to without someone reporting it.  

I would like to know why but I know I never will.....All that said, I think your mouse friend is legit following me.....How did he get way over here to downvote me lol.

I wonder what Nab's opinion is on AI art....obviously he has one and isn't just seeking some senpai luvin'

[scoobdog]

19 minutes ago, cyberbully said:

I'm not sure why it was locked to begin with....At first I thought sponges might have requested it because he was getting exasperated, but then I realized it's not even his thread.....Pat unloked it to comment, so while i assume he's the one that locked it, I don't think he'd have a reaason to without someone reporting it.  

I would like to know why but I know I never will.....All that said, I think your mouse friend is legit following me.....How did he get way over here to downvote me lol.

I wonder what Nab's opinion is on AI art....obviously he has one and isn't just seeking some senpai luvin'

I appreciate that Sponges is trumpeting your "epiphany" as if he's fully on board with the realization that he wants his PC to rape him.  I always thought that was the schtick, but.... no, he really wants computers telling him what his dick tastes like and why it's all wrong.

[GunStarHero]

11 hours ago, cyberbully said:

I'm not sure why it was locked to begin with....At first I thought sponges might have requested it because he was getting exasperated, but then I realized it's not even his thread.....Pat unloked it to comment, so while i assume he's the one that locked it, I don't think he'd have a reaason to without someone reporting it.  

I would like to know why but I know I never will.....All that said, I think your mouse friend is legit following me.....How did he get way over here to downvote me lol.

I wonder what Nab's opinion is on AI art....obviously he has one and isn't just seeking some senpai luvin'

I locked it because Sponges is playing some dumbass Thunderdome game and I immediately messaged Pat to say he can unlock it whenever he likes. 

[Gemini]

On 1/9/2023 at 10:32 PM, GunStarHero said:

Sponges you are the most tone deaf motherfucker I have ever encountered and I am quite positive part of this is some weird ass shtick you're doing to either drive up interactions with your posts or to stroke your ego. Everything you type sounds like a bunch of patronizing half concessions at best and a mound of text-based jackassery at worst. Now grab some bit of my post to feign dunking on (I have underlined it already for your convenience) and ignore the overall message while patting me on the head with your benign ass arguments. What's the problem with AI Art? Humans. 

May i answer the question as honestly as I possibly can?
I think the problem is that there are several human artists who are willing and able to make similar art, capturing something even deeper within the subject of said art, like maybe a certain mood or feeling, and expressing that in a way only a human mind can through art. Granted, they usually have to be financially compensated for it, but it is how they make a living, after all. Now the disadvantage of human-generated art is it takes time to create something as good as the AI art. The cool thing about AI art is you can get multiple pieces at once. But to me, nothing beats human sensibility. (Of course, my answer may be biased for I have several friends who are artists that i met in college. I'd rather admit this here and now than it come up later.)

Edited January 12, 2023 by hornedlizardman

[scoobdog]

1 hour ago, GunStarHero said:

I locked it because Sponges is playing some dumbass Thunderdome game and I immediately messaged Pat to say he can unlock it whenever he likes. 

That answers that.

[GunStarHero]

22 minutes ago, hornedlizardman said:

May i answer the question as honestly as I possibly can?
I think the problem is that there are several human artists who are willing and able to make similar art, capturing something even deeper within the subject of said art, like maybe a certain mood or feeling, and expressing that in a way only a human mind can through art. Granted, they usually have to be financially compensated for it, but it is how they make a living, after all. Now the disadvantage of human-generated art is it takes time to create something as good as the AI art. The cool thing about AI art is you can get multiple pieces at once. But to me, nothing beats human sensibility. (Of course, my answer may be biased for I have several friends who are artists that i met in college. I'd rather admit this here and now than it come up later.)

I was saying the problem with AI art is humans in regards to how it will be used and abused by humans. Doesn't matter what the original intention of a tool is when it morphs into something else by those using it. AI art is not inherently sinister but it is already being abused in its infancy. 

[Gemini]

34 minutes ago, GunStarHero said:

I was saying the problem with AI art is humans in regards to how it will be used and abused by humans. Doesn't matter what the original intention of a tool is when it morphs into something else by those using it. AI art is not inherently sinister but it is already being abused in its infancy. 

Yes, I can definitely see that, too. And that doesn't surprise me either, to be honest. People have shown they can go overboard with something that's supposed to be beneficial to them in some way. That's one of the reasons why I personally haven't done it even though I was interested at first. I mean I could see myself getting multiple AI-generated pieces when one or two would've been just fine. (And another reason is apparently, they're being used by third-parties to track the various subjects, or so I've heard.)

I just approached my original answer with a more creative aspect in mind. Like, for example, the creative choices a human artist can make in the middle of a portrait. Like why one may, for instance, mix in a bit of, say, light pink in with some paint in order to portray how someone's skin may look. The choices a human artist makes while creating a portrait of a human subject are done to convey a certain look or message through the painting.  And it's these subtle nuances that can make the piece truly come alive, so to speak. (Now of course this may not be an accurate portrayal of the subject, but it doesn't always have to be as long as both have an agreed-upon image that they want to convey.)

Edited January 12, 2023 by hornedlizardman

[Raptorpat]

I think pulling it all together, Sponges' central unarticulated thesis is that human minds aren't any more complex, special, unique, valuable, "human", etc. than nascent self-learning AI technology.

If you start from that premise, then it follows that it wouldn't intrinsically matter whether you're talking to a real person or an AI on the internet, and it wouldn't intrinsically matter whether art is created by a person or an AI.

[scoobdog]

36 minutes ago, Raptorpat said:

I think pulling it all together, Sponges' central unarticulated thesis is that human minds aren't any more complex, special, unique, valuable, "human", etc. than nascent self-learning AI technology.

If you start from that premise, then it follows that it wouldn't intrinsically matter whether you're talking to a real person or an AI on the internet, and it wouldn't intrinsically matter whether art is created by a person or an AI.

What about emotions?

[Raptorpat]

you'd have to ask sponges.

probably that it's just a series of neurons firing off and chemical reactions, which means the real thing is no different than an AI simulating it.

Edited January 13, 2023 by Raptorpat
speel good

[cyberbully]

9 hours ago, GunStarHero said:

I locked it because Sponges is playing some dumbass Thunderdome game and I immediately messaged Pat to say he can unlock it whenever he likes. 

Ah, OK....I forget there are others that can lock things....I always default to katt or pat saw it and decided it needed locking.

[Gemini]

11 hours ago, scoobdog said:

What about emotions?

i don't know about anybody else, but like I mentioned earlier, that's the beauty of having a human artist do an artistic portrait of you. They can convey anything you want them to convey or they can just bring it out of the portrait organically by using a different mix of colors or even shadow placement. In my opinion, and of course I may be wrong on this, AI art can't convey that.

[scoobdog]

13 hours ago, Raptorpat said:

you'd have to ask sponges.

probably that it's just a series of neurons tiring off and chemical reactions, which means the real thing is no different than an AI simulating it.

Sponges isn’t as articulate.

[Raptorpat]

 

[GunStarHero]

1 hour ago, Raptorpat said:

 

This was another point I was trying to look into but Sponges likes to side with law as some sort of shield when in truth there really isn't a legal precedent for this kind of thing because it's so new. 

[Raptorpat]

I remember working tangentially on deepfake issues a couple years ago and that was super landmark. Whether or not something is legal or regulated doesn't indicate whether its moral or ethical, particularly when it's something so new that the lawmaking process hasn't caught up to it yet (or that the relevant stakeholders haven't negotiated an agreement on a bill for the legislature to pass). I don't really know the status of deepfake laws across the country currently, but whether there are statutes or judicial precedents on the books, it's still all super new and subject to change. Same thing here.

[rpgamer]

What strikes me as sponges' biggest tripping point, as GSH pointed out, was largely being tone deaf. Arguing as if this is all in some sort of vacuum, with no consideration to the real people it impacts. Which isn't new for him. Wouldn't call it malicious, but it is a failure to see the broader consequences.

Myself, I got no room to make a case for or against the tool or the usage.. so I defer to the artist community, which seems to be pushing back against this. A lot. Out of respect for the opinions of those whom I may respect on the matter, I'd just as soon avoid AI art usage.

[Raptorpat]

https://twitter.com/blumspew/status/1624209407071625216

[matrixman124]

 

Great video about Corridor's attempt to try to set a new standard in using AI art to replace animators.

[Jman]

15 minutes ago, matrixman124 said:

 

Great video about Corridor's attempt to try to set a new standard in using AI art to replace animators.

Huh, I posted about this in the anime folder.  No less than Ralph Bakshi emerged to dunk on it, and he was the guy who used rotoscoping to attempt to adapt The Lord of the Rings (obviously his version was inferior to Peter Jackson’s, but points for effort).

[matrixman124]

Figured it was relevant to AI art discourse

[matrixman124]

Welp, looks like Midjourney can render hands now. It'll get better at doing more accurate renders over time and will be harder to distinguish from human art. However, it still needs to be regulated and scraping cracked down on. Hopefully, Glaze will help.

 

[matrixman124]

And now, AI music has caught the record labels' attention.

 

 

[naraku360]

"AI art" is not only a misnomer but is following a predictable pattern of any new form of art.

Firstly, no AI we have is actually intelligent. It's an unthinking machine that plays crosswords almost intelligibly sometimes.

Secondly, 100 years ago, the concept of film as an art form was met with derision. It's just a fad, one day the youngins will learn that only my high brow BOOKS are the only way to tell compelling stories. 🧐

Yet, nobody can deny the amount of work, passion, and skill it takes to make a good film. We have films accepted nigh universally as deserving prestige.

The talkies? Just a gimmick.

TV? A fad.

Color? Nobody can afford that.

But alas, tell me how art is inherently worse because it's easier to make.

How many years have video games existed and how many years have they been respected as an art form?

It's just antiquated elitism that leaves people scoffing at this because oh no more accessible.

It's going to bubble up with the most godawful shit imaginable, but more people being given technology to produce content that would previously take millions of dollars without corporate dumbasses working to actively suck all forms of creative integrity dry seems like a positive. You get passed the wtf is this phase and we'll be seeing some crazy good stuff soon enough.

I always thought I was "lazy" for being unable to actually practice art to a level I found acceptable. But I've been cripplingly fatigued for over a decade without realizing it. I don't know if it's an injury or what, just that my back has been messed up since high school at latest. It's hard enough to film with legal blindness, and drawing has been infuriating when my hands had no grip. The animation AI thing actually gives me hope that I might be able to make things like one of you normal people.

Edited April 7, 2023 by naraku360

[naraku360]

On 3/3/2023 at 8:49 PM, matrixman124 said:

 

Great video about Corridor's attempt to try to set a new standard in using AI art to replace animators.

Mother's Basement kinda pisses me off, especially on this.

The video is literally some guys making a video and having an algorithm rotoscope it.

Is that not art? How much computer input is too much to qualify? If an AI obtains full sentience and wishes to express itself through art, is that art invalid?

I'd go so far as to say MB goes beyond negligence in his video and the degree to which he misinforms his audience makes the video a downright bad one. I can't say for certain he's being dishonest or simply doesn't know what he's talking about, as I've learned thinking MB knows what he's talking about has often been in poor judgment.

Since we're reposting anime folder links, a much better video on this was done by based af chad Adam Conover.

 

[matrixman124]

The Saga Continues

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/10/artist-appeals-copyright-denial-for-prize-winning-ai-generated-work/