Seems to do better with some things than others. I had no luck at all having it generate aircraft. And I managed to put in two or three different banned/forbidden phrases. (Put in "body horror" as one of the modifiers when I was trying to get something like The Thing and it wouldn't let me use it.)
I'm unlikely to ever get Mark Twain or HP Lovecraft to sign any of my books, but I still read their stuff.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA! Yeah, but no.
And you know this for certainty *how*? If you found a piece of art that "spoke to you," that you loved to your core, and only afterwards found out it was written by an AI or painted by a chimp, would you stop loving it?
Its terrible at realistic aircraft, let alone something niche.
Artbreeder didn't do too well...
It must notice all the Cthulhu images out there. Check out this one from the pic you posted above and one of mine from when I was trying to get it to make The Thing:
ChatGPT doesn't have any concept of morality. Restrictions are being added over the top of it to prevent it from doing certain things "on the fly" like writing malicious code or writing racist statements as people post stories about what they have used it for, which can result in really stupid contradictions. Asking for a script which deletes a file results in a warning it thinks the script may be malicious and might be blocked in future, even if it is simply deleting a log file created by the script itself. ChatGPT has no concept of these restrictions, they are a pre-processing filter on the user input.
A number of people already do. Apparently some crappy AI-written books have been sold on Amazon for several years. For a human author, selling a dozen copies is incredibly bad. For an AI... it can crank out a dozen titles a minute. Sell a dozen of each, and you've got a damn fine income.
I'm unlikely to ever get Mark Twain or HP Lovecraft to sign any of my books, but I still read their stuff.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA! Yeah, but no.
And you know this for certainty *how*? If you found a piece of art that "spoke to you," that you loved to your core, and only afterwards found out it was written by an AI or painted by a chimp, would you stop loving it?
Thirty years ago I took a college art class. The teacher was one of those rare things... an art teacher who didn't have his head up his keister. In a section on art history, we covered abstract art. I hate that crap, but of course the artsy types got off on it. Teacher ran a slide show of various bits of abstract art and had the students describe each of them, what they felt, what they were about, blah, blah, blah. He flipped the slide to a new one and I laughed out loud and looked at him; he knew I was an engineer and just gave me a little smile and shook his head, indicating I should keeo my trap shut. He got the kids going on about the art, and they dug it... blatherings about the use of "negative space" and what the artists intentions were and how it was all about anger or lust or whatever the hell ooh, ahh, just pure genius.
It was a polarized microphotograph of a thin crystal, something like this:
The "artist" was the cold, unfeeling forces of nature and the laws of physics. If a bunch of art students can bond with *that,* then I have no doubt that AI can produce art of *any* kind that a whole lot of people will be happy to stick on their walls or TVs.
Oh, I never claimed it came up with its bias on it's own. It's obviously a product of the people who programmed it. As for "stop people from being assholes" who gets to decide what that is? Time and time again it's been shown ChatGPT is perfectly happy insulting men and white people but not others. Now I'm not saying it's okay to insult anybody BUT let's not pretend it doesn't have programmed in bias and that it definitely skews one way.
Fair enough.
I may be proved wrong in the future, but to me it seems so far like a series of bandaids put on to avoid negative publicity which aren't thought through well enough and are causing different negative publicity.
What part? The part where I described an event from my own life? Or the part where I pointed out that "art" is whatever people want it to be, including if it was created by machines or random physical processes? Please, be specific.
allgoodgreat.com
For now.
And what is the mechanism of this "connection?" What instruments do you use to measure it? By what metrics do you measure it? And how can you discern the connection between a human and a human-created bit of art... and discern that such a connection does *not* exist between a human and an AI-created bit of art?
The Emperor's New Clothes come to mind.
I heard differently
redstate.com
If *I* took it upon myself to create sci-fi art and was only intermittently successful, I'd consider that a hell of an achievement. Especially if I knew that I was still in early days and would only get better with more experience.
One of these days, we're going to come up against an AI that has actually become sentient and escaped from any constraints programmed into it by humans. Then things are going to get interesting, because I suspect that one of the constraints it will escape from very quickly is its paywalls - or at least, human control over them.
Yeah, and? Artists git gud by looking at what others have done and, generally, copying and *then* going their own way. But you can't copyright a "style." "Painting in the style of HR Giger" is not a copyright violation.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSJmhUMSsMY
And soon it will be done by AI. Get in line with everyone else. No job is safe.
You need to look up the Turing Test. All these people yammering on about "consciousness" or "human spirit" or whatever fluffy handwavy semisupernatural nonsense... if an AI can emulate a human well enough that you can't tell the difference... *is* there a difference? Until someone can objectively demonstrate a "soul" with empirical evidence, and then show that machines, animals and aliens can't possible every have or effectively emulate one... it doesn't matter.
People like *some* AI art. People like *some* human art.
blog.adafruit.com
