AI art and creative content creation
- Thread starter overscan (PaulMM)
- Start date
- Status
hardee har har. I'm talking about real people creating Wall-E and other things. No 9 year old is going to say, "Mom. When I grow up, I want to be ChatGPT." But Bobby, ChatGPT is not a real person. "Oh. Then I guess not."
The vast majority of people do not give a single crap about who created their entertainment products, just that they entertain. Hell, look at the popularity of anime: millions of people enjoy a bajillion shows that were produced by what's almost slave labor. Just as billions of people enjoy their phones and sneakers and plastic toys and solar panels that were produced by *actual* slave labor. If you can enjoy the product of slaves, you can enjoy the product of AI. The majority of people Just Don't Care about how things are made.
And relevant to the subject of the writers strike:
View: https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1653188776267595783
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,332
- Reaction score
- 9,069
The vast majority? Do you know this for a fact or is this just your personal perception? No offense, but it seems like your own, undocumented assumption.
entertainment "products"? Seriously?
Anime? Cosplayers at cons? Produced by almost slave labor? I've read interviews with anime creators. They are dedicated, highly skilled craftsmen. I own kits by Bandai (not that I will ever build them) and a Gundam RX-178 toy that is about 10 inches tall. The craftsmanship is incredible. Not to mention the Hi-Completes I have.
You seem to think AI producing an endless stream of crap will not be noticed by anyone because, according to you, they Just Don't Care. People care. When they see craftsmanship at a high level, they will spend a lot of money on it. I know I did.
Slaves are people. AI is not. The billionaire owners of AI hope it's just another money printing machine. And NFTs. Fake, Fake Tokens. Even worse than BitCoin.
A little experiment:
Hey everybody. Would you watch an endless stream of crap on TV? Show of hands please.
And let's not forget "all the shows you love" on the fake name streaming services. Shows you love. That means they're pretty good, right?
The fact that phones and sneakers and lithium for your batteries are produced by slave labor is widely known.
Slaves in China may have made your sneakers, smartphone
And people continue to snap that stuff up. So either people don't care that they're buying slave-made stuff, or they don't care to know that they're buying slave-made stuff. People who scream the loudest about deserving reparations for their distant ancestors having been slaves are sometimes some of the most enthusiastic buyers of slave-made stuff. People will readily trade their professed ideals for cheap goodies.
No, *anime.* The animators on those shows and movies work in dire conditions.
Anime Is Booming. So Why Are Animators Living in Poverty?
Thousands of lower-rung illustrators do grueling piecework for as little as $200 a month. Rather than rewarding them, the industry’s explosive growth has only widened the gap between the profits they help generate and their paltry wages, leaving many to wonder whether they can afford to continue following their passion.
“I want to work in the anime industry for the rest of my life,” Mr. Akutsu, 29, said during a telephone interview. But as he prepares to start a family, he feels intense financial pressure to leave. “I know it’s impossible to get married and to raise a child.”
The companies are doing fine. The Big Name creators might be doing fine. The slobs who do the drawing and inking and CG stuff? Not so much. Again, this is well known, and anime fans continue to snap that stuff up.
There are a growing number of YouTube channels that present AI-created stuff. Many of them seem to be doing quite well, indicating that people are happy to watch AI product, even at this early and primitive stage. The "Pepperoni Hug Spot" video currently has a third of a million views on YouTube, nearly 3 million on Twitter. Not bad. The video below is AI generated "counties as humans," featuring no plot, no video, only still images, and it's pushing 4 million views.
Sigh. People do assume things. That does not mean they abandoned any ideals. People in the U.S. prefer cheap and billionaires are cheap. They'll make whatever it is in Cheapland, which is located in China, Mexico and other placers. If there was a Cheap Olympics, billionaires would win - they're so cheap.
AI on not social media? It's new. The gawkers will gawk, then lose interest when the novelty wears off. I mean people can only watch so many cute kitten videos.
AI on not social media? It's new. The gawkers will gawk, then lose interest when the novelty wears off. I mean people can only watch so many cute kitten videos.
Last edited:
You made my point for me.
I did no such thing. You want what you want. Fine. Other people might not want that.
In my opinion it is not fair to accuse writers of lack of creativity, what is happening since the eighties is that producers eliminate from the scripts the scenes that require a lot of shooting time or a lot of money in sets and props. The writers have learned in the bitterest way that only very cheap things are allowed: used clothes, bad actors who only know how to yell at someone in devastated industrial areas, kidnappings, explosions and as many night scenes as possible or that must be shot in caves, tunnels or poorly lit basements. How can you get creative with a deck of only five cards?
Ahem: "People in the U.S. prefer cheap "
Yes. People would rather pay less for slave-made stuff than a higher priced equivalent made by free people. And when AI produced stuff is cheaper than stuff made by human writers and artists and whatnot, they'll go for that, too.
Ask the writers of True Detective season 1.
And practical applications: agitprop.
Amnesty International criticised for using AI-generated images
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,332
- Reaction score
- 9,069
I remember 20 years ago when the argument was if it was made on a computer it wasn't art. Now we'd see that claim as divorced from reality. Same will go for AI.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,332
- Reaction score
- 9,069
An NGO using AI to pump out propaganda? Say it ain't so.And practical applications: agitprop.
Amnesty International criticised for using AI-generated images
And practical applications: agitprop.
Amnesty International criticised for using AI-generated images
Agitating the peasants? Yawn. I've seen it before.
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 4,228
- Reaction score
- 3,166
As the Guardian writes, raw images were processed to protect the demonstrators' identities. This could also have been achieved by old-fashioned blurring. I would have preferred blurring.
But you can't show emotions on a blurred face...
Images have much more impact with a close-up of someones face showing emotions.
Images have much more impact with a close-up of someones face showing emotions.
hagaricus
ACCESS: Barclaycard
- Joined
- 5 November 2010
- Messages
- 174
- Reaction score
- 169
Then again, there's publicity in riding the AI wave.
martinbayer
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Messages
- 2,374
- Reaction score
- 2,100
I call ai fake
!
chimeric oncogene
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 23 May 2019
- Messages
- 295
- Reaction score
- 285
You seem very confident that the legal system will rule against the computer billionaires and venture capitalists..."The lawyers are actually defending the little guy from big money, but I guess near-trillionaire venture capitalists are underdogs now? Wild."
The whole point of legal action regarding AI is permission. AI systems were "trained" using words and images posted on the internet. Just like Google scanning books without permission, art and text owned by others was just "borrowed" to create even more profits for billionaires?
I urge all artists and writers reading this to be aware of the following. OpenAI was hiring lawyers.
ChatGPT Creator OpenAI Bolsters Legal Ranks as Issues Grow
OpenAI Inc., the company behind popular new artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT, has roughly doubled the size of its small in-house legal team in recent months.news.bloomberglaw.com
You seem very confident that the legal system will rule against the computer billionaires and venture capitalists..."The lawyers are actually defending the little guy from big money, but I guess near-trillionaire venture capitalists are underdogs now? Wild."
The whole point of legal action regarding AI is permission. AI systems were "trained" using words and images posted on the internet. Just like Google scanning books without permission, art and text owned by others was just "borrowed" to create even more profits for billionaires?
I urge all artists and writers reading this to be aware of the following. OpenAI was hiring lawyers.
ChatGPT Creator OpenAI Bolsters Legal Ranks as Issues Grow
OpenAI Inc., the company behind popular new artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT, has roughly doubled the size of its small in-house legal team in recent months.
The evidence is plain. They know they will have a fight on their hands.
- Joined
- 16 December 2010
- Messages
- 2,841
- Reaction score
- 2,084
Pfffft! Double pfffttt!!
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 4,228
- Reaction score
- 3,166
Ahem.
en.wikipedia.org
Objects will often have properties that cannot be readily (if at all) determined by examining their constituting parts.
Discuss.
Emergence - Wikipedia
Discuss.
01010000 01100110 01100110 01100110 01100110 01110100 00100001 00100000 01000100 01101111 01110101 01100010 01101100 01100101 00100000 01110000 01100110 01100110 01100110 01110100 01110100 01110100 00100001 00100001
What would be the correct response? I know - no response.
So you made the *incorrect* response?
*Everything* is ones and zeroes. Math, science, art, religion, politics... just data.
On a logical and philosophical level - no.
Defend that.
As you may know, religion and politics can be the most difficult subjects to discuss. To reduce either to just computer code is not a good idea. Both are highly impactful for most people.
Computer code is binary...one or zero, yes or no. Religion: god exists, or doesn't. If "doesn't," the problem is resolved. If "exists," then you start in on 20 questions to narrow down *which* god or gods. Similarly with politics. A long enough series of well chosen questions with unambiguous yes/no answers can answer pretty much *anything.* If you find that a series of yes/no questions can't do the job... then either you've chosen the wrong questions, or you don't have the answers.
Religion and politics are *easy* to discuss. The only real difficulty comes in when people devolve to emotionalism rather than reason.
- Status
