The only thing I have to contribute to a discussion about the value of AI art is John Berger's ways of seeing. Which is an awesome documentary if you haven't watched it. You think he's going one way when he starts discussing art "authenticity"... but well, you'll see.
My take away from it was to filter the noise around a piece of art and appreciate it on its own merits. A reproduction or a copy isn't inherently awful if its not awful to you. I wander around the NY Met every time I visit my sister. There are some pieces I see every time, there's new pieces I see every time. I love some and I hate others. I'm not going to say there's no value whatsoever in AI art, because there is. It can be a tool. A tool isn't good or bad inherently. The problem is obviously how people will exploit this tool to make cheap, mass produced content which can harm creators without good policy. But this isn't the fault of the AI tools, it's just human nature.
Some people think it's "tacky" to have a reproduction of real art in the home. I think that's high on your supply nonsense. The only thing that matters when you look at a picture is if you think it's good or bad, and what you think when you look at it. Everything is is for Art History Majors.
If I do a creative project like art or music, I'll likely do it with AI assistance. Will it be as good as someone who studied and suffered to do it on their own? Probably not, but at least I can make something that's mine.
as always, if you're using an AI tool that learned based on the non-consensual theft of copyrighted material, it actually isn't yours
a tool is inherently bad if the way in which it was created and the way in which it must function in order to perform its task is inherently harmful, which is where we're currently at with AI and where we're going to be for the foreseeable future
as always, if you're using an AI tool that learned based on the non-consensual theft of copyrighted material, it actually isn't yours
a tool is inherently bad if the way in which it was created and the way in which it must function in order to perform its task is inherently harmful, which is where we're currently at with AI and where we're going to be for the foreseeable future
So is tracing paper. Does that mean I shouldn't use it?
I'm saying if some kid traces some Lord of the Rings art and uses it for his own private use, is it theft? Probably but I'm not going to line him up before the international courts. Is it as good as the original? No, but it's not "inherently harmful."
If you're turning around and trying to sell it, that's a different issue altogether.
It's not new to the art world either as a problem:
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
+17
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
as always, if you're using an AI tool that learned based on the non-consensual theft of copyrighted material, it actually isn't yours
a tool is inherently bad if the way in which it was created and the way in which it must function in order to perform its task is inherently harmful, which is where we're currently at with AI and where we're going to be for the foreseeable future
So is tracing paper. Does that mean I shouldn't use it?
I'm saying if some kid traces some Lord of the Rings art and uses it for his own private use, is it theft?
Speaking as the guy with a background on IP here: No.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
0
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
What if this was some other unrelated thing? Then it would be bad?
If I cooked a hot dog using your recipe, am I stealing from you?
Am I the dumbest motherfucker that has ever drawn breath?
The answer to all of these questions is probably, as far as I can tell!
AI isn't tracing paper, or drawing using photo references, or the first car that replaced the horse and buggy, or any of the other dozen tired, apples-to-oranges metaphors people keep trying to use to justify their weird infatuation with a tool that only exists by mindlessly ingesting the efforts of living humans and breaking it down into a dull, meaningless mush.
"Other people have copied and stolen sometimes here and there before, so what's wrong with an algorithm that can do the same thing but at a scale previously impossible to even conceive, with no interest in or understanding of what it's doing or what it's trying to achieve, and all in a way that robs the content even of the barest humanity that it would potentially retain if an actual person were the one doing it?"
like we've gone over this, these are not compelling arguments or metaphors
Houk the Namebringer on
+19
GustavFriend of GoatsSomewhere in the OzarksRegistered Userregular
Ah hell I hate reruns
+24
MaddocI'm Bobbin Threadbare, are you my mother?Registered Userregular
Maybe they're just a language model that was trained on all the dumb arguments earlier in the thread
NVIDIA also announced a system that allows you to freely speak with "Villager A" in the game using AI. AI-equipped virtual humans will also become normal.
NVIDIA releases demo movie of ``NVIDIA Avatar Cloud Engine'' that allows you to talk to game NPCs with generated AI
As for the other reason I posted this (that is other than the thing itself being pushed):
[excuse the crappy bordering; trying to do that on my phone]
One area where I can see AI really taking off is topographical 3D modeling for open world maps. It's probably already done in a primitive way, and it will be harder to draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable practices when you're talking arbitrary textures and polygons that are not really supposed to exactly reproduce known landscapes.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
One area where I can see AI really taking off is topographical 3D modeling for open world maps. It's probably already done in a primitive way, and it will be harder to draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable practices when you're talking arbitrary textures and polygons that are not really supposed to exactly reproduce known landscapes.
The thing is, what does this sort of thing is better described as "large-dataset-trained open world terrain generation." We've been using procedural, rule based open world terrain generation for ages, like at least since the 90s it's been a feature of video games. It's a highly developed field, very effective at doing what it needs to do. All you're introducing is the need to acquire, somehow, a staggeringly large amount of 3d topographical data, which either has to be based on other people's data (and IP that is even more defensible than the standard artist style) or an immense amount of actual topographical scans which are highly technical, difficult to make, and expensive (so, most likely stolen, and from groups that are highly protective of that data, such as governments, oil companies, etc). And with little upside! The level of detail you want from terrain generation is generally low, because you're just working with so many data points that it's not technologically feasible to get highly detailed in a way that might make the difference between procedural and data set based generation.
One area where I can see AI really taking off is topographical 3D modeling for open world maps. It's probably already done in a primitive way, and it will be harder to draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable practices when you're talking arbitrary textures and polygons that are not really supposed to exactly reproduce known landscapes.
The thing is, what does this sort of thing is better described as "large-dataset-trained open world terrain generation." We've been using procedural, rule based open world terrain generation for ages, like at least since the 90s it's been a feature of video games. It's a highly developed field, very effective at doing what it needs to do. All you're introducing is the need to acquire, somehow, a staggeringly large amount of 3d topographical data, which either has to be based on other people's data (and IP that is even more defensible than the standard artist style) or an immense amount of actual topographical scans which are highly technical, difficult to make, and expensive (so, most likely stolen, and from groups that are highly protective of that data, such as governments, oil companies, etc). And with little upside! The level of detail you want from terrain generation is generally low, because you're just working with so many data points that it's not technologically feasible to get highly detailed in a way that might make the difference between procedural and data set based generation.
How are google maps or other general earth maps protected against AI use? And how protected are the multiple game maps available generally free for download?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
So you're... Paying a robot to... Lie to you about what you're looking at with your own eyes? And then you're preserving that lie instead of trying to capture the image you're looking at and/or capture the emotion inspired by what you're looking at?
So you're just wandering to a random spot in the world and going, "Siri, tell me what I'm looking at"?
And this isn't being presented as a dystopian horrorshow but as somehow a positive thing?
You know how much fun we as a society have laughing about old timey snake oil medicine salesmen, and how funny it was that anybody ever bought tonics with heroin in them and thought it would cure a cold
Thinking about that a lot this morning, no real reason I guess
The original person who made it, at least, was aware it was not a photography replacement and made it as some sort of art project/statement about questioning the role of AI in art, so they get some credit. The legions of people taking it seriously as The Future are morons
milski on
I ate an engineer
+9
GustavFriend of GoatsSomewhere in the OzarksRegistered Userregular
Yesterday the dj of 93.3 The Eagle our finest purveyor of butt rock in the Ozarks ranted about how much AI was stupid.
And so goes butt rock so goes the world. I believe this
+6
Tynnanseldom correct, never unsureRegistered Userregular
So you're... Paying a robot to... Lie to you about what you're looking at with your own eyes? And then you're preserving that lie instead of trying to capture the image you're looking at and/or capture the emotion inspired by what you're looking at?
So you're just wandering to a random spot in the world and going, "Siri, tell me what I'm looking at"?
And this isn't being presented as a dystopian horrorshow but as somehow a positive thing?
This is a hell of a non sequitur, but this made me think about the PNW forest fires from recent years. A few years back, Portland OR had smoke so bad that the sky was deep orange-red. Seattle had it bad, too, but nothing like what Portland suffered. Anyway, it was plain to see by eye and in photos that were manually set, but people’s phone cameras kept trying to wrench the white balance into something that looked “normal” even though it was very much not.
0
Kane Red RobeMaster of MagicArcanusRegistered Userregular
God, Twitter is so much worse now that the same 60k idiot bluechecks are at the top of every discussion. I get bored and leave trying to scroll down to see if there's any real discussion.
Pope Innocent III calling for a crusade with both phones.
+2
GustavFriend of GoatsSomewhere in the OzarksRegistered Userregular
edited May 2023
Honestly, the further we get the more I feel like we are headed to a pretty righteous Twilight Zone ending.
One where the biggest tech dork champions of this software, the ones who seem to be threatening the arts with glee, are the most likely to have their industry replaced by shitty AI.
Posts
content aware fill would only use content that existed in the source image to try and repeat details
this new one uses image details sourced from... somewhere
god its so good as we all know math at a theroitical level never has to be proven
we just wrote that shit down and it works
i wish i had finished university so i could justify the trauma math proofs gave to me
now they still confuse and scare i couldnt cut that in half!
My take away from it was to filter the noise around a piece of art and appreciate it on its own merits. A reproduction or a copy isn't inherently awful if its not awful to you. I wander around the NY Met every time I visit my sister. There are some pieces I see every time, there's new pieces I see every time. I love some and I hate others. I'm not going to say there's no value whatsoever in AI art, because there is. It can be a tool. A tool isn't good or bad inherently. The problem is obviously how people will exploit this tool to make cheap, mass produced content which can harm creators without good policy. But this isn't the fault of the AI tools, it's just human nature.
Some people think it's "tacky" to have a reproduction of real art in the home. I think that's high on your supply nonsense. The only thing that matters when you look at a picture is if you think it's good or bad, and what you think when you look at it. Everything is is for Art History Majors.
If I do a creative project like art or music, I'll likely do it with AI assistance. Will it be as good as someone who studied and suffered to do it on their own? Probably not, but at least I can make something that's mine.
a tool is inherently bad if the way in which it was created and the way in which it must function in order to perform its task is inherently harmful, which is where we're currently at with AI and where we're going to be for the foreseeable future
So is tracing paper. Does that mean I shouldn't use it?
I'm saying if some kid traces some Lord of the Rings art and uses it for his own private use, is it theft? Probably but I'm not going to line him up before the international courts. Is it as good as the original? No, but it's not "inherently harmful."
If you're turning around and trying to sell it, that's a different issue altogether.
It's not new to the art world either as a problem:
https://gizmodo.com/theres-something-off-about-marvels-star-wars-comic-1822347742
Speaking as the guy with a background on IP here: No.
If I cooked a hot dog using your recipe, am I stealing from you?
Am I the dumbest motherfucker that has ever drawn breath?
The answer to all of these questions is probably, as far as I can tell!
"Other people have copied and stolen sometimes here and there before, so what's wrong with an algorithm that can do the same thing but at a scale previously impossible to even conceive, with no interest in or understanding of what it's doing or what it's trying to achieve, and all in a way that robs the content even of the barest humanity that it would potentially retain if an actual person were the one doing it?"
like we've gone over this, these are not compelling arguments or metaphors
Time is a flat circle I take it.
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
As for the other reason I posted this (that is other than the thing itself being pushed):
[excuse the crappy bordering; trying to do that on my phone]
Steam ID - VeldrinD | SS Post | Wishlist
Not even a circle in this case. More of a squished rhombus that's fallen off the table.
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheZombiePenguin
Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/thezombiepenguin/
Switch: 0293 6817 9891
Steam ID - VeldrinD | SS Post | Wishlist
Yeah it's not like video game are art or anything
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The thing is, what does this sort of thing is better described as "large-dataset-trained open world terrain generation." We've been using procedural, rule based open world terrain generation for ages, like at least since the 90s it's been a feature of video games. It's a highly developed field, very effective at doing what it needs to do. All you're introducing is the need to acquire, somehow, a staggeringly large amount of 3d topographical data, which either has to be based on other people's data (and IP that is even more defensible than the standard artist style) or an immense amount of actual topographical scans which are highly technical, difficult to make, and expensive (so, most likely stolen, and from groups that are highly protective of that data, such as governments, oil companies, etc). And with little upside! The level of detail you want from terrain generation is generally low, because you're just working with so many data points that it's not technologically feasible to get highly detailed in a way that might make the difference between procedural and data set based generation.
but cello, that's as many as four tens!!!
How are google maps or other general earth maps protected against AI use? And how protected are the multiple game maps available generally free for download?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
So you're just wandering to a random spot in the world and going, "Siri, tell me what I'm looking at"?
And this isn't being presented as a dystopian horrorshow but as somehow a positive thing?
Steam ID - VeldrinD | SS Post | Wishlist
Thinking about that a lot this morning, no real reason I guess
And so goes butt rock so goes the world. I believe this
This is a hell of a non sequitur, but this made me think about the PNW forest fires from recent years. A few years back, Portland OR had smoke so bad that the sky was deep orange-red. Seattle had it bad, too, but nothing like what Portland suffered. Anyway, it was plain to see by eye and in photos that were manually set, but people’s phone cameras kept trying to wrench the white balance into something that looked “normal” even though it was very much not.
Pope Innocent III calling for a crusade with both phones.
One where the biggest tech dork champions of this software, the ones who seem to be threatening the arts with glee, are the most likely to have their industry replaced by shitty AI.