Submitted by rpaul9578 t3_yuoabr in singularity
Comments
Akimbo333 t1_iwam7a7 wrote
Right! The Lion King is derivative of Hamlet!!!
[deleted] t1_iwapq2b wrote
[deleted]
BenjaminHamnett t1_iwbqrse wrote
We are just biological robots doing the same thing
E3riedescent t1_iwbze3z wrote
Yeah, but doing the thing is fun
Akimbo333 t1_iwareiu wrote
Yep!
TinyBurbz t1_iwe9ygp wrote
>The Lion King is derivative of Hamlet!!!
Actually, its nearly a shot for shot remake of a Japanese animation called Kimba the White Lion.
Akimbo333 t1_iwegw8p wrote
Oh shit I heard about that! Damn!!!
Tip_Odde t1_iwcc1gt wrote
Not to mention artistic talent is made by countless hours of practice, something mostly requiring rich parents to do.
Ihateseatbelts t1_iwdtp9l wrote
People really need to chill with this argument. Without heavy qualification, it's just as misinformed as the mainstream perception if how AI art works. We aren't all trust fund babies - nowhere fucking near, lol. Is this a US thing?
Tip_Odde t1_iwe8hhy wrote
Its the truth. The only reason I get to work in a creative field is because my parents provided a safe home for me as a kid to express that creativity. Not saying you are as privileged as I am at all, there are always exceptions. But thats also only one piece of it, I had countless hours to grow those talents because I only had to work part time. I didnt have to work at all in college and afterwards I was able to move to a different state to pursue my art because I knew that if all else failed, I could move home.
cutoffs89 t1_iwctc7f wrote
I don't think it's about Copyright. Artists are pissed because they're being told to put down their paint brushes and learn to become boring "Prompt Engineers"
UnemployedCat t1_iwb3pye wrote
Ok, no art is not created in a vacuum but that's not the problem here.
Humans need to process the art through their senses, to the brain, then, eventually learn and apply their skills to re-create something new.
It usually takes time to become a good artist and even more so to really be original.
AI is a great technological feat but it's as good as the input fed into it.
Machine driven creation is possibly going to replace artists because of the speed of execution and the amount of works that can be created.
This only benefits capitalism at large not the individual creator.
That's where a lot of the AI community fails to really question the motives and implications behind it.
There aren't enough hours in a day to watch, play, read, listen to all the available content and people want more ?? If you want quantity over quality that's up to you I guess.
kmtrp t1_iwbfsst wrote
>Ok, no art is not created in a vacuum but that's not the problem here.Humans need to process the art through their senses, to the brain, then, eventually learn and apply their skills to re-create something new.It usually takes time to become a good artist and even more so to really be original.
AI works similarly, except it doesn't take much real-world time to train and produce. We like to think very highly of ourselves, we are so original, we are so creative and complex... but this AI revolution is proving that we are not that awesome.
​
>AI is a great technological feat but it's as good as the input fed into it.
No. The output is greater than the sum of its parts. Same thing with LLM. It's something called emergence, and we don't know how it happens.
AI is not going to replace only artists, but every job we can do with a computer.
​
>That's where a lot of the AI community fails to really question the motives and implications behind it.
The AI community is most aware of these changes and what the implications are going to be. The clue is in the name "singularity". That's why we often talk about UBI and other solutions because we know they're coming, and they're coming faster than the world knows. We have daily discussions about it and have tried to warn everyone about it, but those who don't understand how exponential growth works frequently accuse us of daydreaming. You should spend more time here reading than writing.
UnemployedCat t1_iwcpscu wrote
Your reply really encapsulate the technocratic mindset of some people in the AI community.
It's quite ironic that without humanity there would not be any AI to speak of. Nor would there be any artworks to "copy" from.
We're not special but that does not make the AI superior or better.
No one in the Ai community here will have anything to say about UBI or whatever. We should discuss about AI but I refuse to adhere to the naive mindset that we have anything to say about how it's going to develop.
Corporations/private interests will decide. Not you or me.
kmtrp t1_iwg2kwg wrote
Check out huggingface.
Corporations have toys from big engineering muscle, but the beauty about this moment is the huge amount of private toys opensourced and toys made open from the beggining. Eventually, we will all have toys. Even the bad guys which is the real menace, not skynet.
[deleted] t1_ix46ga3 wrote
[deleted]
Mandamelon t1_iwanuab wrote
what misinformation? and how is implying the most ultra-reductive position possible ["everything is just a rearrangement of atoms and therefore nothing can ever be considered too derivative"] not bad faith on your behalf?
Sashinii t1_iwaorh9 wrote
AI creates novel art, but many people falsely claim that it copies pre-existing art.
DerivingDelusions t1_iwar2ny wrote
It technically generalizes a data distribution. So I guess it more so copies style. The works themselves are original.
Sashinii t1_iwarl2e wrote
The works are indeed original, but I think "learns" is more accurate than "copies".
Kaarssteun t1_iwbawuu wrote
Common Sashinii W
Mandamelon t1_iwas367 wrote
but the works that any model produces are derived from existing art in a sense, yes? even if 'copy' is too strong a word let's not pretend that it's a totally distinct and novel thing. concerns about human artists being displaced are not unfounded
Sashinii t1_iwasrga wrote
AI art and human art are equally as original.
Literally all jobs are going to become obsolete in the 2020's or the 2030's; AGI will accelerate progress in molecular nanotechnology research, leading to the creation of the nanofactory, which will enable post-scarcity.
red75prime t1_iwb4g33 wrote
If you have 1 kW universal nanofactory, the minimum estimate of the amount of time to produce, say, a sturdy steel shovel (or a pound of rice for that matter) is around an hour (one erased bit per atom at Landauer limit at room temperature and no other energy expenditure). The more realistic time is probably around 1000-10000 hours or a month to a year. Diamondoid shovel will be lighter (and can be built faster), but there still are limits on how light it can be (and you can't make lightweight diamondoid food). Rice that costs 1 - 10 megawatt-hours per pound is hardly sustainable.
Universal nanofactories are quite energy hungry due to amount of computations and operations required to place individual atoms.
See part 8.2 of http://crnano.r30.net/Nanofactory.pdf for example.
So I think that universal nanofactories will supplement instead of replacing traditional manufacture methods.
Specialized nanofactories can be more efficient (e.g. biological processes), so a nanofactory that churns out rice at reasonable energy cost (less than megawatt-hour per pound) is realizable, but not so versatile, apparently.
I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but it seems you need access to a megawatt-class power source (that's around 140x140meters or 460x460feet of solar panels) to enjoy a universal nanofactory which is not painfully slow.
Atomic "lego block" factories will probably be a suitable compromise: higher speed, less prone to abuse (building toxins and poisons, for example).
Rumianti6 t1_iwreiv5 wrote
You can't run from this, I will educate you. AI-generated imagery as it stands is a flat collage of input. Human artists also reproduce what is put into them. At this point I'd say they are the same, initially, but humans do it three-dimensionally. AI does it flat.
The human neural network is comparatively more detailed than AI as it stands currently, and human art reflects a three-dimensional trajectory through references of sociocultural, psychological, and spatial properties. It reflects a distinct form, and this is originality.
AI-generated art is inferior not because it is "merely" from an AI: they are qualitatively the same as us: but because it is one-dimensional replications of collages of actual originality.
I just dislike humans being elevated qua humans without dissecting that matter.
The truth is that AI art is no where near human art.
sumane12 t1_iwb1tiy wrote
But if an artist ever looks at a different artists work, he is being influenced by that work in much the same way an AI would be, the argument here is to say only art created by an artist blind from birth (who's also never heard, felt or taken in any data in anyway about someone else's art, or had any positive or negative feedback) could be considered original art
DerivingDelusions t1_iwek2vb wrote
Yes, the artist and the AI create original works. However, there is a difference in how ai vs humans can be inspired.
The difference between an artist and a neural network is that an artist can take inspiration and make it their own by incorporating their own ideas. A neural network actively tries to generalize work in order to reduce a cost function. The universal approximation theorem also tells us that neural networks approximate continuous functions, meaning they are following a predetermined pattern. In this case, inspiration for neural comes from generalizing other works (matching the distribution), which creates original works, but does not allow for the AI to incorporate its own unique ideas (since it’s mathematically not designed to)
sumane12 t1_iwg7h7z wrote
And if you can prove humans do not generalise from other work, or patterns found in nature or elsewhere, then you deserve a Nobel prize.
Ultimately our pattern recognition is the same in function as any AI (although may be programmed differently). We cannot extrapolate truly inspirational ideas, we are only able to merge key features of different patterns in a novel way. True inspiration is a fallacy.
Altruistic_Yellow387 t1_iwazder wrote
I’m sure all the people commenting that they can see it wouldn’t be able to if we weren’t told up front it was AI. Lots of non AI art has all the flaws mentioned also
AsuhoChinami t1_iwbn6vz wrote
Fully agreed. I remember when techno-skeptics were just curmudgeons instead of gaslighters.
TheTomatoBoy9 t1_iwbthzt wrote
Bro... the first image gives it away so fast. Just zoom on the eyes. They are fuuuucked lmao
Edit: and that shnoze... Jesus
AsuhoChinami t1_iwdnul5 wrote
I think it's kind of funny that we've already forgotten that human artwork can also be wonky and imperfect, to the same extent as the eyes and nose you pointed out. Anyone who says it's obvious that it's AI created is full of shit. It's "obvious" because it's an article about it being an AI-generated comic. If a friend told you "here's a few panels from a cool comic I just read" and sent them to you without any context you wouldn't have the first solitary clue it was AI.
TinyBurbz t1_iwe9tl1 wrote
>If a friend told you "here's a few panels from a cool comic I just read" and sent them to you without any context you wouldn't have the first solitary clue it was AI.
Saying things dont make them true.
AsuhoChinami t1_iweai9l wrote
You're right, but saying true things does make them true. Waste of time to argue though, almost never seen a shred of intellectual honesty from self-proclaimed techno-skeptics and I doubt that I ever will.
TinyBurbz t1_iwh885s wrote
>almost never seen a shred of intellectual honesty from self-proclaimed techno-skeptics and I doubt that I ever will.
You want honesty while providing none of your own?
Suck my fucking balls.
AsuhoChinami t1_iwhro3j wrote
Terribly rude. smh.
TinyBurbz t1_iwvo23m wrote
Bro you're literally out here calling people "dishonest" because they can spot very obvious AI art.
AsuhoChinami t1_iwvq1tj wrote
That was 50 years ago, move on
Mooblegum t1_iwe78an wrote
What make me think it is AI is that the characters are so statics, but the images are gorgeous. A talented illustrator would have learn to draw characters in motion and with emotions.
razorbeamz t1_iwap548 wrote
I would know it. The eyes are really messed up, and it just looks like Midjourney's style.
TheForgottenHost t1_iwawwy2 wrote
Definitely have to squint to find the problems. But the scary part is that future perfection doesn't seem that far off. I had dreams of becoming a comic artist one day. I've gotten good too. But what's the point of getting better when they'll be able to emulate any artist I respected or that influenced me?
I'm in despair, man.
Nicokroox t1_iwb77js wrote
I think we are all in despair, for artists it's a disaster whichever field you are in... Damn, even programmers will be affected with AI because she can learn to substitute real langage with code, sure there will always be the problem of interpretation, the programm won't be exactly what you wished for but that will work and everybody will be able to do what they want, sure it's progress and it's amazing to be able to make a computer learn and "understand" concepts and have this ability to be as flexible as human but it's a serious narcissm problem for us i think.
HalfbrotherFabio t1_iwbk42s wrote
I don’t think it’s necessarily narcissism problem for us. It is just an existential problem. As a human, becoming irrelevant not just in certain facets of life, but to the society as a whole and to other individuals is death-like.
BenjaminHamnett t1_iwbrfqc wrote
This just means people who didn’t master the craft get a say in story telling (programming) also. It’s actually more Democratic. This reminds me of pearl clutching marginal professional writers being displaced by the horde of amateur writers who don’t make money but get to tell their stories now through self publishing.
What if tshirt designs could only be made by people who learned silkscreening or pictures could only be taken by people who studied cinematography and film developing etc
People are mad they learned a craft to give themselves a platform but now everyone gets a platform
gangstasadvocate t1_iwbtdsc wrote
I mean it’s fine with me I have no qualms just taking drugs all day and fucking off and letting AI do everything better and with less effort and support me. I get that’s not everyone but some of us will be happy
HalfbrotherFabio t1_iwc5o1h wrote
Yes, I can imagine that for some, hedonism suffices. There definitely are plenty of people, however, for whom it doesn’t. It sort of digs into the question of what a good and meaningful human life is, and that’s the kind of question that we haven’t properly managed fo settle for the longest time. This is tricky.
gangstasadvocate t1_iwc5ufk wrote
Indeed. Glad to be hedonistic sufficient if it comes to that for me at least. Don’t know what to tell you if not, try to augment yourself with it and work with it even if it’s better than you?
blueSGL t1_iwcru4f wrote
Look at hobbies, they are done because people enjoy the activity and fruits of their labor, normally these activities go up against 'professionals' doing the same thing and don't produce as good results but people still enjoy them and do them anyway.
With a lot of hobbies it's Money goes in > Enjoyment comes out. not Time goes in > Money comes out.
Why won't post scarcity just be everyone finding those activities and doing them?
HalfbrotherFabio t1_iwctw6r wrote
That very well might be the case. It’s difficult for me to assess post-scarcity scenarios, not least because, I imagine, the end of necessary labour has significant ripple effects in other facets of life. There is, however, a certain sense of finality to (at least in my imagination) this post-scarcity world, that does not quite sit well with me.
blueSGL t1_iwd2fdu wrote
We are already in a society where you don't know the names of the vast majority of people involved with anything you have sitting around you right now, who designed your chair or desk or monitor, what are the names of the people that picked or processed the food you are going to eat this evening.
Is there some sort of additional worth that part of the process was done by human hands instead automated by machinery?
There seems to be a weird fetishization of hardship that some people have where it needs to exist in order for people to be able to enjoy themselves, they need enjoyment as a break from the drudgery of modern life and if it was given to them all the time it would not be as special.
That I feel shows a lack of imagination. In a world where you can do whatever you want you can take up multiple hobbies, get tired of doing X you can do Y, or Z or A or, AXX or whatever. A lifetime of activities you choose that are rich in challenge and differences.
Emory_C t1_iwenqsl wrote
>Why won't post scarcity just be everyone finding those activities and doing them?
Because there won't be post-scarcity. There's no indication AI like this will usher in a post-scarcity world. So, what we'll see is redundant humans with no purpose. We've already seen what a society with lots of purposeless people looks like in other parts of the world. Violence almost always follows.
blueSGL t1_iwerajz wrote
>So, what we'll see is redundant humans with no purpose
this has been covered repeatedly on here, If a % of the work force each year gets replaced by AI (either by augmenting so supply outstrips demand or flat out replacing) UBI or a similar scheme will be forced to be enacted by every government to prevent the economy collapsing and wide scale riots.
There is no reason to produce products and run services via automation if there is no longer a large enough consumer base to buy them so entire business sectors will lobby for UBI
Emory_C t1_iwfk4aj wrote
There is zero evidence that anything like “UBI” For the entire population will work, or will lead to anything other than people living at a subsistence level.
blueSGL t1_iwfp1u3 wrote
again, it would have to work, the current economic system is designed around a certain percentage of the population being able to afford goods and services. Start removing a chunk of that each year and there won't be any choice, there is not suddenly going to be more jobs to hoover those people up.
Having a lot of intelligent former workers unable to pay bills and willing to fight for a common cause is a dangerous mix, anyone who is a student of history can tell you how quickly such a thing can go bad and governments (esp ones that likely have much better AI modeling) will decide to pay people a basic income than deal with the alternative.
There will be pressure to do this both from the newly unemployed and the companies with shrinking bottom lines. Whatever solution is conceived would need to satisfies both. That may be UBI or a similar scheme. A correction of this sort would be the only option to avoid major disruption to the capitalist system. Something that would be inevitable without intervention.
Emory_C t1_iwfua4b wrote
Again, UBI will only support people at a subsistence level. What you're suggesting is basically servitude to the state.
Nemelex t1_iwdkrfp wrote
I have a similar perspective, but optimistically. For years there have been enormous projects in my head that I've wanted to create, but haven't had the time or skill to do - my hands shake, my schedule is full, there just isn't enough time to both survive and learn how to be the artist I wish I could. With generative engines like this, suddenly my chance to see my dreams come true and my creative visions brought to life skyrockets.
With the help of these tools, I can create the most genuine version of what I see in my head, and I can show the world what I see. Free from the burdens of day-to-day survival and hundreds or thousands of hours of necessary artistic practice that I simply don't have, I still get to show everyone what my imagination contains. And that prospect is exhilarating.
Emory_C t1_iweo1ue wrote
>With the help of these tools, I can create the most genuine version of what I see in my head
The most genuine version of what you see in your head would be created by your own labor, not an AI algorithm.
Nemelex t1_iweok24 wrote
My labor is my guidance of the algorithm. I'm not just asking it to give me a picture, I'm img2img guiding my own rudimentary ideas, clarifying, reprocessing, in-filling to the details of my idea. I'm clearly and closely incorporated with every part of the process.
It's like saying a house isn't a real house if you use power tools to build it and a hired architect to design it instead of doing it all yourself. Why shouldn't we rely on specialized expertise and specialized tools to help us with our creative expression the same way we do with the real world?
Emory_C t1_iwfkiiw wrote
There’s zero creativity in what you do, I’m afraid. The algorithm is just copying ideas from better minds, badly. If you truly want to be creative and show the world your vision, learn to express it in your own way. The algorithm will always, by definition, be derivative.
Nemelex t1_iwflejp wrote
The seed of the idea is mine and that's what matters. You can shout random words into the engine and get something out, sure, but you can also guide it and persuade it to make what YOU imagine. If you think that isn't true, I don't think you understand the nature of how current AI engines work on a basic level, where constant influence, interaction and tuning happens during image creation.
Also, by any definition? We are ALL derivative. Culture and society are cumulative; if I'm taught the methods of art from a teacher who was taught by a book, my art nor vision isn't lessened by the fact that my abilities have a source outside of myself. It's absurdly reductive to think "this was inspired by Van Gogh, and is therefore unoriginal," because we are collectively influenced constantly by the world around us and the things that interest us. The only difference is this can do it faster.
It also relieves the burden of physical labor significantly, which can greatly relieve the disabled. Why should an artist whose hands shake so bad they can't draw straight not be allowed to create their art with tools like this? The elderly, the infirm, the unfortunate? "If you don't make it with your own hands, it has no value" is a noxious notion to those likely already greatly suffering. You would diminish the value of their artistic expression simply on the fact that they are not physically capable of it, and I find that reprehensible.
Emory_C t1_iwfnbsz wrote
>The seed of the idea is mine and that's what matters.
No. Ideas are a dime a dozen. An idea is worthless by itself. It's the execution of an ideas that makes it unique and valuable and interesting. Since you're abdicating the execution to an algorithm, you're also abdicating your role as the creative agent.
>If you think that isn't true, I don't think you understand the nature of how current AI engines work on a basic level, where constant influence, interaction and tuning happens during image creation.
Please. 🙄 I've used all of the current AI engines and they're nowhere near sophisticated enough yet to realize even a basic idea:
- They can't show complex backgrounds, landscapes, or interiors.
- They can't generate interacting people.
- They can't draw tools of weapons.
- They can't create expressive faces.
- They can't create consistent characters.
- They can't frame shots.
And there's lots more it can't do, as well. There's no way a genuinely creative person who has a story they want to tell would find any of the current iteration useful in any way.
>Also, by any definition? We are ALL derivative.
This is a bullshit reply made by the uncreative. There are still such things as "originals." They may have drawn from the artists who came before them, but then they took those influences and made something wholly new.
The algorithms cannot do that. All they're capable of doing is mocking already existing styles.
>It's absurdly reductive to think "this was inspired by Van Gogh, and is therefore unoriginal,"
If all you made was art that seemed like a bad Van Gogh knock-off, you'd be quickly forgotten by an artist. You would need to quickly develop your own unique style. Since the algorithm cannot do this, it's destined to fail as anything other than pure kitsch.
>It also relieves the burden of physical labor significantly, which can greatly relieve the disabled. Why should an artist whose hands shake so bad they can't draw straight not be allowed to create their art with tools like this? The elderly, the infirm, the unfortunate? "If you don't make it with your own hands, it has no value" is a noxious notion to those likely already greatly suffering.
The disabled can create great art. There are numerous examples of people with physical and mental disabilities overcoming those limitations and making gorgeous music, paintings, and other artistic pieces. If you have the creative bug, nothing will stop you from creating. And there is a power in having to fight to get your true vision into the world. If you don't understand that idea, you are not an artist.
TheForgottenHost t1_iwfozyq wrote
But here's my problem. I like drawing! I like that I spent so much time cultivating this skill. I got a stack of paper the size of my fist full of straight lines to improve my motor skills. For me making comics is equal parts writing and drawing. If a machine does the second, what's the point all of a sudden? In 10-15 years, when I'm laboring away at my second issue, some upstart with a bright idea as me and no skill will completely steam roll my craft with an omnibus finished in month.
People like me are completely left in the dirt here.
Nemelex t1_iwfqani wrote
I imagine similar things happened when tailors, hand-crafting shirts, saw great industrial machines fabricating enormous rolls of cotton all at once, to be cut and trimmed into simple shirts. Would you try to stay up 20 hours a day, frantically pricking at your fingers to desperately and futilely try to keep up with the massive capacity of industrial creation? No, of course not. You can't adapt to that degree of complexity and industry. But you can handknit custom shirts, you can make skirts and hats, you can do whatever you want with your shirts.
I can insist on the value of "the soul of cooking," but I would be a buffoon if I tried to outproduce advanced, complex food factories churning out thousands of gallons a soup a day. That doesn't take away from the value of the soup I make at home - it just means I'm not gonna bring down Campbell's with my handmade food.
The same is EXACTLY true for digital art. Are you shaking your fist at people who use Photoshop, draw perfectly straight lines and use complicated vectors and shaders and filters to encapsulate particular styles and ideas in mere seconds that would manually take hours to create? Of course not. It's just a different means of artistic creation. I'm sure medicine men were angry at legitimate doctors when they brought medicine and technology and used them to save lives instead of rely on the traditional medicine men, but that doesn't mean the advancement of technology is a bad thing. It's just something to adapt to.
Your enjoyment of the creation of art shouldn't go away because other people can make art faster. It sucks to feel scared about technology taking your job away, but if you want it to be your job then adapt to the technology and use it yourself, nothing is stopping you. Just don't try to outfabricate a factory line with nothing but your hands, your wits and your plucky spirit.
TheForgottenHost t1_iwitnyt wrote
But that's the underlying problem with mechanization. It takes the personable aspects of the craft and feeds them through the machine. It's not your labor. It's just pointing in a direction and having the computer do all the work for you.
Who cares about their work more? The artisan who chipped away at every part of the toy horse for their store? Or the assembly line worker who spends all day every day making the same hindleg. One put more humanity into their work than the other by a long margin. You might say that the labor is taken out. But when you're competing with peers, in your own mechanized industry, how much of your art will you disassociate from to meet the deadline.
Who cares about their work more? The artisan who chipped away at every part of the toy horse for their store? Or the assembly line worker who spends all day every day making the same hindleg. One put more humanity into their work than the other by a long margin. You might say that the labor is taken out. But when you're competing with peers, in your own mechanized industry, how much of your art will you disassociate from to meet the deadline?
The time you put into the craft makes it.
As to your second point, of course, I'd spend hours even days laboring for my work. I and others love putting our souls, our wits, and our hurt, into our art. The act of doing as an artist is the end in itself. The fact that you would just brush it off as an example of people not 'getting with the times' just screams callousness on your part.
Also, how can you compare like art to medicine?? One is a subjective endeavor. The other is a scientific process that improves with time. Art hasn't improved with time. Its quality has always been defined by the work people put into it. Having photoshop tools is all and good, but without that crucible of dedication that so many have put themselves through, it just doesn't register the same.
Whatevers2011 t1_iws9ze8 wrote
While this is a nice idea, if the AI is great enough to make these artworks, it will become good enough to make the story as well. And through iterative data driven design, they will create works people can't get enough of. So you can make your idea, great. No one will care.
botfiddler t1_iwcapuc wrote
I'm glad to see that. That's going to help bringing more independent creators to the audience. The big western companies in comics destroyed themselves anyways.
techhouseliving t1_iwc0zjm wrote
To me it just shows how much similarity there is in much of human creativity.
debil_666 t1_iwat4w9 wrote
It's amazing work, but you can most definitely see it. Alot of still images, lack of people interacting, no facial expressions.
botfiddler t1_iwcaawy wrote
Many western comics I saw recently are Calart or some weird cyberpunk inspired style with many POCs and ugly women.
MassiveIndependence8 t1_iwataxf wrote
It looks really good until you take a closer look at it. So trippy, it’s like something out of your dream
Opticalzone t1_iwb3ukf wrote
Is it really that hard to not use paint style?
OrcOfDoom t1_iwbozab wrote
Can we play with it?
towngrizzlytown t1_iweiebe wrote
Wow, they're beautiful.
Brangible t1_iwghzb3 wrote
The unwashed masses won't and don't care
Sashinii t1_iwal94k wrote
"AI generating visual art, composing songs and even writing poetry and movie scripts is driving some of that anxiety, raising ethical and copyright concerns among artists and even lawyers. AI art isn't created in a vacuum. It works by absorbing and reconstructing existing art created by humans. As machine-made art improves, will those humans -- actual graphic designers, illustrators, composers and photographers -- find themselves edged out of work?"
It's like people won't be happy until the amount of AI misinformation surpasses the amount of vaccine misinfomation. For crying out loud, these aren't good faith arguments. No art has ever been created in a vacuum and almost everything that exists is just a rearrangement of atoms.