6 ms·

>Not to be an ass but they're the most inflammatory sources of news I know, I won't even open an article from "Independent" for my own mental health. omg, then

>Not to be an ass but they're the most inflammatory sources of news I know, I won't even open an article from "Independent" for my own mental health. omg, then don't click on the link, there's OTHER links I posted too. Relax bro. I just googled the term and found a bunch of links and posted them because it's literally everywhere. You don't have to follow ANY of the links if you don't want to. The point is to show you that this stuff is everywhere. I think your sources are limited that's how you missed something as big as artists launching the first resistance against AI. There were SEVERAL articles about this on HN as well. >Sorry, but you're just wasting my time with rot and weak arguments. Now this is just rude. You say "not to be an ass" but you deliberately call my arguments rot and weak and say I'm "wasting" your time? That is OFFENSIVE. And is literally against the rules here and inflammatory. Please leave HN or follow the rules. Yes good day to you I don't want to engage in a flamewar you almost started.

bamboozled 4y ago
I just did a bit more research, artists AND corporations, including Getty images are in lawsuits against companies stealing their work to train AI models. There's a big, big, big difference between copyright based lawsuits and you claiming "artists launching the first resistance against AI". I think they're against people scraping their work and on selling it ? I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but there is a difference to what you're claiming.
- fckgnad 4y ago
  The resistance involves copyright lawsuits and online bullying to attack people using AI. That's exactly what I mean by "resistance" >I think they're against people scraping their work and on selling it ? I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but there is a difference to what you're claiming. I already told you that's an excuse. Google and thousands of AIs and other megacorps have been scraping artists work for decades. The backlash wasn't a big deal then. Why suddenly is it a huge problem when AI art hits an inflection point and can produce art that's equal in quality to the artist? Because the copyright isn't the real problem. It's the AI. Heck when the AI looks at the art it scrambles the art and encodes it into Memory the same way YOU encode the art into your memory. Does that mean by looking at art you are copying it? Why don't other artists have a problem with you looking at art and copying it into your memory? Because you can't use that memory to produce original works of art in the same style as the artists. That's why the artist doesn't give a shit about you copying the art into your brain. They do give a shit about DALL-E copying the art into it's neural net because these AI's can potentially replace them.
  - bamboozled 4y ago
    You're just arguing some people are afraid of being replaced by AI, new flash? Some people are afraid by peoples sexual orientation. Some artists are already replaced by better artists, they don't just resign from doing art. Art isn't really about money, it's about self-expression, there is no case where an AI is going to replace that, it's personal. By the way, are photographers rioting in the street? Because they should be too, I've not seen it but they should be? Artists already knew this and photographers too, there were more photos and images available online for free or next to nothing, than you could ever imagine or possible consume. It didn't change much, people still did art and people still got hired and not much will change. People will still be involved in art and photos. For fun and for money. I guarantee you there is a whole group of people who see using DALL-E to generate new interesting ideas as being a thing too, who see it as an opportunity. Similar to who Chess players are using AI to study new moves. If it's your profession, yeah it might suck, but on the other hand, I choose to hire artists because I enjoy working with people and building something together, it's a whole different creative process and in my opinion, creates better products for the specific use case. I actually wouldn't mind sitting with artists who use AI to create things? Because the copyright isn't the real problem. It's the AI. Heck when the AI looks at the art it scrambles the art and encodes it into Memory the same way YOU encode the art into your memory. Does that mean by looking at art you are copying it? Why don't other artists have a problem with you looking at art and copying it into your memory? You're naive actually about how these things work, these things use statistics to draw pictures based on statistics, they don't understand anything, it's why when I use DALL-E, it makes some nice stuff, but when I look more closely it also does weird things like, has objects sticking out of peoples heads. So no it doesn't do the same thing, it doesn't "understand" anything. I would understand if I was asked to draw a picture of someone that it would be strange to have a wooden stake sticking out of their ass. DALL-E doesn't. Go and get it to draw you a photo of children playing, it will be quite a nightmare. While this stuff is impressive, it's a very, very big leap to go from painting by numbers to understanding something and being creative in that way. I personally think it will be a fun and exciting time when this happens, but fundamentally, it's quite a different system. I actually get the feeling as humans, we're also overlaying our own ego onto how great these creations we've created are without being practical and objective enough to actually figure out if these things are actually important. Style, design, etc is more than just "having the image". Selection is important, for example musicians write thousands of songs and never actually record them. There is a time and a place for specific art to be deployed, consumed, displayed, I don't think this is going away either, "style" and having an eye for the correct imagery is not something that will be replaced anytime soon. Essentially, having infinite images also means making the right choice becomes harder, that will be a new trade in itself. These days I struggle to watch a movie, there are just too many options, AI is only going to make this problem worse. We'll be drowning in shit. Nothing is as simple as it seems. From the perspective of psychology, I think the most salty people are those who don't do art, it's almost like people hope this is the end of people being able to freely express themselves. Kind of like the quest to crush artistic freedom is in progress.

bamboozled 4y ago

I just did a bit more research, artists AND corporations, including Getty images are in lawsuits against companies stealing their work to train AI models. There's a big, big, big difference between copyright based lawsuits and you claiming "artists launching the first resistance against AI". I think they're against people scraping their work and on selling it ? I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but there is a difference to what you're claiming.

fckgnad 4y ago
The resistance involves copyright lawsuits and online bullying to attack people using AI. That's exactly what I mean by "resistance" >I think they're against people scraping their work and on selling it ? I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but there is a difference to what you're claiming. I already told you that's an excuse. Google and thousands of AIs and other megacorps have been scraping artists work for decades. The backlash wasn't a big deal then. Why suddenly is it a huge problem when AI art hits an inflection point and can produce art that's equal in quality to the artist? Because the copyright isn't the real problem. It's the AI. Heck when the AI looks at the art it scrambles the art and encodes it into Memory the same way YOU encode the art into your memory. Does that mean by looking at art you are copying it? Why don't other artists have a problem with you looking at art and copying it into your memory? Because you can't use that memory to produce original works of art in the same style as the artists. That's why the artist doesn't give a shit about you copying the art into your brain. They do give a shit about DALL-E copying the art into it's neural net because these AI's can potentially replace them.
- bamboozled 4y ago
  You're just arguing some people are afraid of being replaced by AI, new flash? Some people are afraid by peoples sexual orientation. Some artists are already replaced by better artists, they don't just resign from doing art. Art isn't really about money, it's about self-expression, there is no case where an AI is going to replace that, it's personal. By the way, are photographers rioting in the street? Because they should be too, I've not seen it but they should be? Artists already knew this and photographers too, there were more photos and images available online for free or next to nothing, than you could ever imagine or possible consume. It didn't change much, people still did art and people still got hired and not much will change. People will still be involved in art and photos. For fun and for money. I guarantee you there is a whole group of people who see using DALL-E to generate new interesting ideas as being a thing too, who see it as an opportunity. Similar to who Chess players are using AI to study new moves. If it's your profession, yeah it might suck, but on the other hand, I choose to hire artists because I enjoy working with people and building something together, it's a whole different creative process and in my opinion, creates better products for the specific use case. I actually wouldn't mind sitting with artists who use AI to create things? Because the copyright isn't the real problem. It's the AI. Heck when the AI looks at the art it scrambles the art and encodes it into Memory the same way YOU encode the art into your memory. Does that mean by looking at art you are copying it? Why don't other artists have a problem with you looking at art and copying it into your memory? You're naive actually about how these things work, these things use statistics to draw pictures based on statistics, they don't understand anything, it's why when I use DALL-E, it makes some nice stuff, but when I look more closely it also does weird things like, has objects sticking out of peoples heads. So no it doesn't do the same thing, it doesn't "understand" anything. I would understand if I was asked to draw a picture of someone that it would be strange to have a wooden stake sticking out of their ass. DALL-E doesn't. Go and get it to draw you a photo of children playing, it will be quite a nightmare. While this stuff is impressive, it's a very, very big leap to go from painting by numbers to understanding something and being creative in that way. I personally think it will be a fun and exciting time when this happens, but fundamentally, it's quite a different system. I actually get the feeling as humans, we're also overlaying our own ego onto how great these creations we've created are without being practical and objective enough to actually figure out if these things are actually important. Style, design, etc is more than just "having the image". Selection is important, for example musicians write thousands of songs and never actually record them. There is a time and a place for specific art to be deployed, consumed, displayed, I don't think this is going away either, "style" and having an eye for the correct imagery is not something that will be replaced anytime soon. Essentially, having infinite images also means making the right choice becomes harder, that will be a new trade in itself. These days I struggle to watch a movie, there are just too many options, AI is only going to make this problem worse. We'll be drowning in shit. Nothing is as simple as it seems. From the perspective of psychology, I think the most salty people are those who don't do art, it's almost like people hope this is the end of people being able to freely express themselves. Kind of like the quest to crush artistic freedom is in progress.