One of the few points I will make in defense of "AI," particularly image generators, is they excel at reproducing (and accidentally remixing) the kind of banal, generic art that was already ubiquitous prior to "AI."
-
@datarama It's nice!
@datarama As a no budget self-published author, I have sometimes used image generators for book covers and the problems I have in that regard may sound familiar.
On the one hand, if I wanted to use, e.g., a butterfly, there are already a million stock images of butterflies available for next to nothing I could choose from.
On the other hand, when I need something more specific that represents the story in some way, it's almost impossible to get anything useful because of that specificity.
-
@datarama That sounds like a very tired goat?
@gwynnion The struggle itself towards the edge of the screen is enough to fill a goat's heart. One must imagine Goat-Sisyphus happy.
Though I suppose you can click the gif to give him a break.
(I based the walk cycle on a late-1800s photo study of various walking animals that I found on the Internet Archive. I screwed up one of the hind legs a bit, but I'm quite happy with it.)
-
As an author, I'd be annoyed if someone fed my works into an LLM to try and produce more stories using my style. But I also realize that a) those "stories" would suck due to the software's inherent limitations and b) I'm not so talented or unique as to be irreplaceable anyway.
I get more upset by people stealing and reselling my work directly because I put actual work into that.
I understand the concern with "AI" creating deepfakes or copying a very noteworthy style such as Studio Ghibli, mainly for creating confusion as to the veracity or provenance of the image, but it's not like artists weren't copying each other already for various reasons.
Again, the bigger problem is the way "AI" automates the production of this stuff, putting it in the hands of people who have no particular use for it, and the resource costs involved in doing so.
-
@gwynnion The struggle itself towards the edge of the screen is enough to fill a goat's heart. One must imagine Goat-Sisyphus happy.
Though I suppose you can click the gif to give him a break.
(I based the walk cycle on a late-1800s photo study of various walking animals that I found on the Internet Archive. I screwed up one of the hind legs a bit, but I'm quite happy with it.)
@datarama "One must imagine Goat-Sisyphus happy."
How did I know you were going to say that? LOL.
It's nice, though! Well done!
-
@datarama "One must imagine Goat-Sisyphus happy."
How did I know you were going to say that? LOL.
It's nice, though! Well done!
@gwynnion I don't know exactly how big the intersection of the venn diagram of "pretentious nerds who quote Camus" and "goat-obsessed people" is, but I do know that it is home.
-
One of the few points I will make in defense of "AI," particularly image generators, is they excel at reproducing (and accidentally remixing) the kind of banal, generic art that was already ubiquitous prior to "AI."
@gwynnion I think I kind of share the same view (at least to some extent). My problem is more with the environmental impacts and rise in electricity costs for surrounding communities. Surely the big giant corporations behind all of this have the money to offset these problems, right?
-
I understand the concern with "AI" creating deepfakes or copying a very noteworthy style such as Studio Ghibli, mainly for creating confusion as to the veracity or provenance of the image, but it's not like artists weren't copying each other already for various reasons.
Again, the bigger problem is the way "AI" automates the production of this stuff, putting it in the hands of people who have no particular use for it, and the resource costs involved in doing so.
Almost everything about "AI" would be merely a dumb nuisance if it weren't being pushed on the general public by multiple mega-corporations using it to justify massive datacenter projects that suck up power and water for no reason -- and especially if those companies weren't underwriting the cost in the short term to encourage people to use it.
And I have strong doubts "AI" will ever be able to do what they want it to do anyway.
-
@gwynnion I don't know exactly how big the intersection of the venn diagram of "pretentious nerds who quote Camus" and "goat-obsessed people" is, but I do know that it is home.
@datarama Well, I might like to rent a room there, at least.
-
@gwynnion I think I kind of share the same view (at least to some extent). My problem is more with the environmental impacts and rise in electricity costs for surrounding communities. Surely the big giant corporations behind all of this have the money to offset these problems, right?
@Aaron_Davis A lot of the problem is just scale and trying to use "AI" for things it's not good at despite the inefficiencies of the system. Like, we already had text summarizers and customer service chatbots. They worked better back then, in many ways!
I wouldn't have much of a problem with the software if it were lightweight and energy efficient to run.
-
@Aaron_Davis A lot of the problem is just scale and trying to use "AI" for things it's not good at despite the inefficiencies of the system. Like, we already had text summarizers and customer service chatbots. They worked better back then, in many ways!
I wouldn't have much of a problem with the software if it were lightweight and energy efficient to run.
@gwynnion Yeah I can agree with that. I personally think it would be better if everyone (myself included) could make and run AI systems locally.
-
@gwynnion Yeah I can agree with that. I personally think it would be better if everyone (myself included) could make and run AI systems locally.
@Aaron_Davis I think that's why the bubble will burst. It's unsustainable. They're just passing around money trying to generate hype for something that is useless, and light, portable, and efficient models will eventually make these massive datacenters redundant anyway.
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
