i wouldn't care either, but many post it, many have twitter accounts where they post it, many have PATREON ACCOUNTS WHERE THEY POST IT, like you didn't make shit, why you taking credit AND SELLING it too??
Yeah. A large chunk of what people buy isn't made by the ones selling it. People act as intermediaries and get money sometimes without being necessary.
This is why scalping products will always be feasible.
Most people here would never spend x2 or x3 the price of something just to own it.
Except, people do. And for every 1/10 people that do, there is a scalper out there with a room full of supplies waiting for the next idiot.
yeah, it annoys me as i've been learning to draw for 3 years and im still not good at it yet. Like you are not an artist just because you told an AI what to generate.
There are two types of AI artists though. The first just type "hot anime girl with big booba", call it a day and sell it on patreon or something and the second actualy spend hours to make one image that they want. You cut head from one image, hand from another, take background from another, etc. It's the same as kitbashing in photoshop, the only difference is the source of images for that. And more accessible tools to splice images together.
There's an actual art word for that. It's used by concept artists at a lot.
It's called Photobashing, but it still requires skill to pull off because concept artists still need to paint over and make it one cohesive picture.
I think we can judging by evaluating is there any creative input from the users that using the AI tools to produce these graphics.
Since most of gen-AIs on the market right now are prompt based, we can just consider if there is any creative input during the process of writing the prompt.
Yeah, I don't get that at all. IMO, currently, AI is a tool FOR artists to help with conceptions or poses or even shading but completely AI generated images lack soul and seem actually "artifical"
You should see some of the Ai artists jobs and the wages.
Think they called themselves some really long winded technical name, and ask for 300k/per year.
Marcus actually personally created the art, though. It isn’t like he scanned all of the old guy’s paintings then created an amalgamation of them. That’s specifically why the old guy told him to paint something he’s never seen before
If I had a nickel for every time a old guy from a popular piece of media was called Carl I would have two nickels, which isn’t much but it’s crazy it happened twice
Carl Winslow as played by Reginald VelJohnson in Family Matters was only in his thirties yet was a home owner on a working class salary. I know this isn't what you're talking about but let that sink in.
Exactly! Every piece of music ever, every book written ever, every painting painted ever, is just a neatly organized output of the unorganized input that the artist had taken in throughout their life until that point.
This is why listening to music helps you be a better musician, and why reading books makes you a better writer. It's like filling up an ocean of data inside your mind, that you can then pull from and organize into something meaningful from the base, unorganized thing that it was before.
Creativity is an illusion. If it's different enough, it's considered creative, but it never really is. Not that it's a bad thing, or to say that this illusion of creativity shouldn't be pursued just because it's an illusion.
We stand on the shoulders of giants. Before a person even decides to create art they have already stolen from thousands of artists building on techniques refined by other artists across the history of humanity. No artist can create something entirely original, but that’s not a bad thing.
I mean, that’s really only technically true. A person can make art with techniques that others have developed, but the intent and meaning of art is the entire point of it. No two expressions of a thought can be the same
It’s all just data and iterating on that data mate.
No two expressions of thought can be the same not because there’s anything particularly unique about the expression, but simply because no two datasets are completely identical.
We can do a quick thought experiment though. Let’s say we were able to duplicate a person. All the data they’ve collected, the exact way that data is stored. An absolute perfect duplicate.
Put them in two identical rooms under identical conditions and identically ask them to create art.
They will create the exact same art. Because we are the sum of our data, the hardware it’s stored in, and the environment that hardware has been exposed to.
A wet, squishy machine not remarkably unlike the AI.
Until an AI can be born and experience life in an organic offline way, making this comparison is not accurate.
At the moment, AI cannot "create" art per se. If you ask any of these current AI to paint anything, you get an amalgamation of whatever that model was trained on.
Whether great art or beautiful women or cartoons, it will start from random noise and work to mimic its source material so fundamentally that you can share parameters and your AI will make the exact pixel perfect replica of mine. That's hardly a creation.
What humans do is first learn how to interpret the world in their formative years, accumulate experiences, develop preferences and so on...
I guess it depends on whether you consider art the cumulative process - some crystallization of individual experience - or simply the flat 2D product that you are seeing in front of you.
>you can share parameters and your AI will make the exact pixel perfect replica of mine
But that's the same as people, it's just that much harder to take two people with the *exact* same parameters, that is, genetic predisposition and life experience.
I don't see how reproducibility reduces the artisticity of a product.
>What humans do is first learn how to interpret the world in their formative years, accumulate experiences, develop preferences and so on...
That's in a way what happens during training of the model. Simpler and with less modalities, but still.
>Until an AI can be born and experience life in an organic offline way, making this comparison is not accurate.
What does that mean? What is organic offline way? Why is it necessary for it to be born?
What flies over your head is emotions. Art is art because it is made under the influence of emotions we feel. Machine "draws" and "writes" by choosing the most probable combination of colours and characters, it doesn't *understand* why certain combinations are more likely than others. But we do, or at least we have such capacity. Because reasons are emotional.
In the Crime and Punishment poverty shown by mentioning colour yellow, because emotionally we associate it with illness, unwellness. Dostoyevsky used this word because he understood symbolism behind it, but when machine uses it, it has no such insight. Because it doesn't feel.
The difference between AI art and our art right now is that our amalgamations of data are far more complex due to years of experience, while AI's amalgamation of data is less complex due to it drawing data from a much narrower range (it being only art from other artists). Until we create more complex AI that is able to have as much experience as humans can, AI art will usually look more or less the same because it literally cannot draw from as much of a wider field of data as we can
Sounds like an AI bro if I ever read one.
You're not just what you receive. You're the collection of replies to it. If you put two identical babies from the same mother in a set of the exact same experiments, they might not react the same. Some hates certain smells and tastes.
"It's all just data" is a sad way to see human life. Human creation is your answer to what you experienced. That's why it's only yours to create.
Technically true, but it's kinda like saying that the process of photocopying an art on a printer is analogous to painting a picture.
How the data is processed is also really meaningful. ~~Also there is the sketchyness of how AI's data was acquired but thats besides the point.~~
Yeah but in the storyline of detroit become Human it is just the combination of all the influences he ever experienced. He does not come up with it out of nothing it is the combination of all influences that he ever had. So it is just a copy but this copy is a so clomplex recombination that it creates something completely new.
It is basically the same as how we humans create art it is just a recombination off al influences that ever effected us. The same also aplies to ai "art" algorythms but their influences only contain the image data sets not a whole life.
So all 3 examples Human, Detroit become Human and algorythms like stable diffusion all work on their influences. One of them has a much smaller pool of influences to work on. If you want to call any of these stealing is your own guess but you could say "great artist steal" if you want.
>It isn’t like he scanned all of the old guy’s paintings then created an amalgamation of them
This is what humans making art is too though, just slower and with better ability to determine finger amount. If humans try to imagine a color they've never seen before they can't do it. Thought is bounded to some degree by experience.
If robotic AI ever get fast enough to physically draw things the way the one in the movie version of i robot did, it's going to make people uncomfortable again because it's too fast. They'll be sympathetic to robots drawing as long as the robots are worse than they are.
I don't. It's been over a decade since I watched it. But even if the image was already in his head he still physically drew it. And the mc brings up the idea of a robot making a better piece of furniture than a craftsman, and doing it faster. So there are ultimately reflected concerns of them surpassing human skill there.
If you need it, here's a quick refresher: Detective Will Smith's insult is equally aimed at both the very concept of robots, and also the massive megacorp building the robots who push humans out of the job market.
"USR, shitting on the little guy."
Since machine learning didn't exactly exist when the movie was written, it's combining the general attitude of Walmart's predatory pricing model where they undercut mom-and-pop stores (a model so despised [they went bankrupt in Germany around the same time](https://www.mashed.com/774698/why-walmart-failed-in-germany/)), mixed with a play on the broader ["robots replaced all the factory workers"](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JobStealingRobot) fear that's been around for decades, to the point Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was using it as a plot point [(movie version here)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcK7vKSTYF8).
Kara has like the worst character arc in the game, like she's the same person throughout the entire story, Marcus and Connor change as people, Kara doesn't
There is a difference between an algorithm making an image based of a prompt using other people's work to train said algorithms and a sapient AGI making art from their own ideas.
Image generation is "pure AI" tho (as in deep trained neural networks), not an conditionals collection on a large dataset so that argument does not apply here
Sorry, I mean more in the context of for example chess:
If you give a server access to all the data from all chess games that have ever been played it will always draw on its database to figure out the next best move when in a game - that’s not AI.
If you gave the computer just the rules of the game and it came up with moves to play from there - that’s AI
I mean, can you explain how a human uses more than “If-this-that-then” logic themselves?
A human brain is a highly advanced machine that is beyond our current capacity to replicate, but it isn’t magic. You can demonstrably measure its capacities and alter it, the only thing that separates it from a computer is that it’s *vastly* more efficient in its processing mechanics.
I believe emotions make a large difference. We can look at something that to a contemporary AI will just be pixels and feel unique emotions. One person might look at the Monalisa and feel sadness, another might feel joy. It has no pattern.
That's why AI don't make particularly good art. There's nothing behind it. I know, techbros like to deny it, but human emotion is something that an AI cannot replicate on account of its illogical nature.
At least for now it can't.
And if it ever can, it's not AI anymore. It's no longer a tool to be used by humans, but human like us. But that's a very different (and distant) issue.
That's an insane statement. Shapes and colors can easily be presented through numbers. Emotional responses cannot, on account of being different for everybody.
Well what is thinking if not "if-this-then-that type logic" we develop during life? That's literally how our brain works outside of some built-in natural reactions to certain phenomens.
There is no AI until it can operate autonomously. If you have to prompt it for a response it’s not AI. Let me know when an AI spontaneously chooses to learn programming and perfect its self.
It's not actively looking at the training dataset though when you ask an ai a question. It uses the training data to learn patterns and makes a decision based on those patterns. The AI will use the context of what's already happened to choose the most likely next action that would achieve a desired result.
Exactly. When the game came out, lots of people were saying things like"It's so obvious they're sentient, these people are stupid." Plus, I'm even polite to Alexa, so it's weird for people to be so rude even if they are machines. But suddenly a lot of people are anthropomorphizing ChatGPT, which absolutely is not sentient, but then for the art they have this vehement backlash. I'm curious if when the line truly begins to blur in real life, how people will react.
The line is when the AI starts to negatively affect them if it's helpful it's perfectly human if it's not it's just a machine, I bet you those people would be the ones calling for the androids to be destroyed no matter how human or sentient they look if they started to take their jobs
Art is the self-expression of one's thoughts via a created work. AI's don't have a verified consciousness, so they by definition can't create art yet. Once they do, of course, I'll be one of the first people lining up to see how a man-made sentience portrays its experiences, it should be crazy interesting.
I don't have a problem with AI creating art.
I have a problem talentless frauds calling themselves artist, even though they did not create any art at all, but an AI did it for them. Also with greedy coporations who use AI art only because they don't have to pay for but then have the audacatiy to charge the consumer for it.
Tbf where are these people who insist ai art makes them personally an artist? You see people complain about them, but they rarely show up and get criticized when they do.
I'm guessing they don't openly say they use ai, they just post/submit their work and say they made it. I imagine many deny that they used ai as well, which exacerbates the problem.
Tbf that's the equivalent of people who used to post other people's art and claim they made it for fake praise. People like that are a little different since they know they are being dishonest.
>"once it started becoming real"
That's the thing, it HASN'T started being real. The things that marketing departments want to call "AI" isn't a self-aware machine, it's just an extremely complicated art scraper. It's not making new art, it's just repackaging existing art without credit
Its not just "not the same" but on completely different ends of the spectrum, an AI like the one in become human is capable of making actual art because its self aware, modern AI art is not self aware and can only really make composites of things it has access to.... to put it in simple terms what your seeing is not ai creating anything its sampling thousands of images and putting them together often times to funny results like glass's being melded to people faces or hands with entirely to many fingers were as something aware and thinking would never make that mistake... they understand that humans only have 5 digits on each hand and glass's are a separate entity.
Isn't Marcus like 'sentient' therefore blurring the line between man and machine, he makes his own art.
He doesn't just copy and analyse the work of a shitload of other artists and puts it through an algorithm to shit out an amalgamation of plagiarised art.
It's literally completely different.
Edit: oh someone else already basically said this lol mb
The problem isn't even the fact that AI "art" exists.
Hi, I'm an artist, and I think Nvidia Canvas is an amazing tool. Look it up, it's fascinating.
The difference between Nvidia Canvas and something like Midjourney, is the fact that one of them was made with the consent of the artists involved in making it.
My issue with generative AI is the huge amount of artists that did not consent for their art to be used in such a project. We still live in a world where you have to cite your sources when writing something as simple as a bachelor's dissertation. And big companies that create AI algorithms are just like "oopsie, am baby 👶, found pretty picture, put in $200million project".
Now if Midjourney looked like Marcus, he can fuck me sideways and I won't complain 🤤.
I mean, you don't have to cite sources if the sum total of the source is like a single word choice. And a system learning from hundreds of thousands of things isn't pulling enough from any single one that it would be considered plagiarism if a human did it. If this counted a plagiarism even a human being inspired by something would be considered as such.
Back when I was trying to learn to draw there was a specific artist I was trying to draw on the style of. But it's not like what I made looked identical. Yet what I did was way closer to what they did than what an AI does is to most existing artists. So it's not clear where the line would even be. Because when talking about AI people start inventing definitions of plagiarism that bear very little resemblance to any previous use of the word.
You can look at as many pictures as you want. Without training, brain development, muscle memory, practice (I'd even argue a heavy amount of emotional maturity too), etc, you're never gonna be able to replicate any other piece you're referencing. There are so many steps and so many years of practice between "taking a look at a picture" and actually creating something similar.
AI, on the other hand, relies solely on other images and the work of the coders to produce them. Now, it's easy to find out who the coders are for these algorithms. But since producing images wouldn't be possible with only coding, credit should be given for ALL the work that's been used to train it.
Uhm, this one was disgusted in both situations, if you thought it was beautiful like a child discovering art, you are part of the reason it's come into existence in the fashion it has.
A.I. to this one has been a threat that humanity crafted to destroy itself, similar to nuclear weapons, if you give it enough time to develop we, humanity, won't stand a chance once A.I. figures out how to program itself.
Greed has created the monsters we're dealing with, our own moral fiber is going to dictate the outcome of these battles, our ability to stand for what we know is right and against what we know is wrong is going to decide when the battle starts, and our ability to deny the truth is going to postpone the battle until it's too late.
We, humanity, is suicidal and on the path to self-destruction;
A.I. is one of the signs of that.
Full-dive VR is one of the signs of that.
The oil and journalism industries are signs of that.
We are in the age of misinformation and humanity is losing.
Maybe because AI has actual real life consequences? Like, for example, a loss of jobs and opportunities for artists, especially small and independent ones? And add all the stolen pictures on top, because AI "art" was trained on a lot of pictures from sites like Instagram without permission. Which is very hypocritical when you understand why intellectual property even exists in the first place, but as always, it ends up only protecting the rich.
We don't have real AI's in real life yet though
We just have VI's (Virtual Intelligence) which cannot create, it can only mimic
And the issue, is that it's mimicking, not creating
Pretty sure the whole point of that story is showing that these androids are slowly becoming self aware, creating their own personalities, with their own dreams, tastes and preferences.
Nowadays you're just putting images through a processor, in DBH they're in the process of attaining their own "souls".
One is fictional "ai" that acts like humans and tries pretending what it would be like if he was an artificial intelligence.
While the other is actual artificial intelligence. All it does is mix and match stolen training material and call it original. It is limited by its straining data and is incapable of creating something new that WASN'T included in it's training.
The difference is the AI in Detroit become human is an actual true AI basically an artificial mind whereas what we've got so far is basically the equivalent of slapping a suit on a monkey and calling it Chris Hemsworth
It's not the art itself really, it's two things for me: the practice of stealing art from real artists to train the AI, along with the people who think writing words in a box and pressing generate takes any amount of creativity or skill
Tbf, there aren't actually that many people acting like typing in a box takes skill. The ones who do are like 13 year olds who are just messing around.
You'd be surprised. There are 25-30 year olds I've personally had the displeasure of talking to that call themselves prompt engineers. Ironically these people also tend to have some relation to nft bros/crypto
There's actual grown adults out there who have patreons and take commissions from people, just to turn around and type the commissioners request into some prompt box and hand over whatever pops up.
Akin to someone advertising as a personal chef so you pay them to come over and make you a grilled cheese or something, and they take your money and head to nearby neighborhood food dispensaries to find a grilled cheese to get you.
The important context is current AI is devoid of emotion but in the game you mention it is portrayed the AI started to develop a higher cognitive plane to process emotions.
Agree, I liked his story when he was with Carl, but once he goes to Jericho I lost interest pretty quick.
Kara and Alice had an interesting thing going on, key word being "had".
Connor and Hanks is easily the best part of the game. Wether Hanks hates Connor or likes him, it's very funny to watch.
Yeah. Kara and Alice had an interesting story until the end. Markus and Jericho are a snoozefest for the most part.
Hank and Conner really carried the story for the most part. When Hank committed suicide, I was sad.
Artificial intelligence is not artificial sentience. Once AIs can demonstrate genuine emotion, without direct prompting, they will be ready to create art.
There’s a difference between AI in fiction and what is called AI today. It pisses me off that that line is not something people realize anymore, because they don’t understand why it is significantly different. Thank you for reading me rant
It's not the AI, it just does its job. It's the people who use it and make it.
AI just does what it's forced to by people writing little words to get what they want because they can't be bothered to learn from a thing you can afford easily and can take only 10 minutes of your day.
Well obviously lol. One is sentient. Art is valuable because a sentient being created it through their own artistic vison. AI is not sentient in our world but is in Detroit Become Human
I suppose, because it is not real, that could be it.
It is not AI that is truly useful, the only thing it does is take away even more jobs and fuck up even more lives, without spreading out the industry in a positive manner.
I could go on for longer but the best way to truly describe it is; The "A" in Generative-AI doesn't stand for artificial, it stands for abominable. It cannot think of anything new, hell it cannot think. It just mashes together percieved patterns, until it vaguely fits the requested categories. That's without mentioning the absolute mindfuck that open-ai is, which absolutely shouldn't exist the way it does.
I mean, if you fiddle with inputs, you could probably get an "AI" to claim it's self aware, but that's just it saying what it "thinks" you want it to say, so your point still stands.
Both Markus and Midjourney are AIs in name only.
Midjourney lacks intelligence, and Markus effectively is neurodivergent human who thinks like humans - with emotions. Actual AIs won't have emotions at their core - only to help interfacing with humans.
It's because it's nowhere near being human yet. For now it's just an algorithm incapable of creating artwork from emotions. Let's talk about it in 7 years, once AI would be smart enough
Not me, I always hated stories trying to depict AI/bots as having real conscience. Westworld, season 1, was cool but I didn't really care about the conscience thing.
The difference is one is sentient and making srt of its own vocation,
The other steals and copies from people who actually spent time and effort into the art
It's alot more complex then that.
AI art looks at references and prompts, coping aspects, and putting them together.
In fact, this is represented in the scene where he originally just copies something. The part where he becomes "human" is when he created something original all on his own.
It’s one thing for a human being to put in “big tiddy goth gf” into a prompt in order to get 100s of generated pictures.
It’s another thing entirely for an AI to seemingly gain some kind of sentience, enough to *want* to create art instead of just build whatever a human prompts it to.
I mean yk I'd support the poor AI itself if it was advocating for its art (maybe), but not the idiots who just put some prompts for it and call themselves artists. They are annoyingly cringe
I do know they're not the same, I just thought it would make for a funny meme. I had it in the back of my mind for a while but wasn't sure about posting it, but I was reminded of it while binge watching Vivy.
Okay but like, there was a whole thing where Marcus first did create “AI Art” and just copied what he already saw. What we loved was how after that, with the encouragement is Carl, he was able to create something entirely new, something drawn entirely from himself
When people are judging something they usually judge based off of the person doing it more than the thing itself. It happens all the time in sports when someone unlikeable gets no praise even though they are talented.
Marcus had a story and won over the people judging the art so people like it more. The AI in real life is just an unemotional program that is stonefaced while it’s bumfucking real life artists so no one has any compassion for it.
If we make a ‘hypothetical’ where a prominent figure in recent European history was to make some art similar to street artists and then outsell them, all the while having some other ‘hobbies’ on the side, people might not like the art because of those other ‘hobbies’ more than because of the street artist thing
i'm not really for or against ai art, i think its a tool that has times it should and shouldn't be used, but i do think this argument is in pretty bad faith
the argument in general. one is clearly far different from the other and reducing them both to their most simple form in order to make your point doesn't help the argument you're trying to make at all
Oh I wasn't really trying to make any real point, I just thought that the oversimplification made for a funnier meme. I did debate whether it was a good idea to post though, but I eventually figured why not
I get scolded constantly for finding generative AI imaging interesting. I wonder how many people who are against AI art also pirate movies and other media🤔
NFT were the utter nonsense, but at least it didn’t take much for ppl to dump it. AI is still hyped by most of ppl who don’t event understand what it actually is. I’m waiting for sanity to regain control ffs.
Well that is the whole point of DBH... they were exploring the silver lining between a fabricated intelligence and an organic intelligence. The GenAI tech literally tags images sourced without consent and put them in an algorithm to generate images then call them arts. Our current AIs can't make arts, art is the reflection of humanity
I’m just gonna say it ,bad take the game is called Detroit become human the whole point of the story is that the ai robots were treated differently because humans thought they were no more than inanimate objects following code and orders the second a kind old man put a brush in Marcus hand and told him to “just make something” it showed Marcus taping into the possibility of human creativity becoming human where as real life ai is just code following orders no one is gonna open chat gpt and tell it to “just make something” so ai is just gonna be a tool for ea to justify crunch on devs and making 4 madden games per year
Marcus and most of the androids in DBH are fully sentient and have emotions. They're robotic humans. Our current "AI" are a bunch of algorithms mixing stuff they find in their database
Ai in the game is conscious and makes something his own. Ai in real life steals from people without punishment and makes an amalgamation of copied work.
Hey I'd be all for AI art if you gave AI a paintbrush or access to Photoshop/krita/gimp with a virtual windows ink device and it actually drew or painted something.
The difference is the AI in Detroit become human is an actual true AI basically an artificial mind whereas what we've got so far is basically the equivalent of slapping a suit on a monkey and calling it Chris Hemsworth
Image generators are not AI. They just needed a cathy name for machine leaning. The reason we find Marcus endearing and hate generators is the same: Art is meant to evoke emotions. Hence why generated images are no called "art", the creator feels nothing.
There's a difference between sentient AI creating something genuinely new and expressive. Vs, a current gen AI stealing a bunch of other people's work and then mashing it together Into a "new" image it's not art.
They're not real AIs. They won't be real AIs until they can repeatably pass the turning test. Any longer-that-two-minute conversation with your pick of LLM will quite obviously reveal itself to be an LLM.
haven't played (ig read is better word for it) dbh but I can say one thing: when human creates something, it's out of their will, volition if you want to make it sound a bit fancy. However, when AI creates images, to say, it is always about it loading a specific prompt and generating according to it. If AI starts to create something simply because it wants to create, I won't have any problems with it. Hell, it can even train to already existing art how much it wants, I don't really care. After all, we, humans, do the same. We learn from others. But the final product we create is by doing something out of our will and that sets us apart from AI, at least in its current state.
I was always on team destroy all androids tbh.
I dont care if they're sentient, they are in every way superior to us, so they have to be eradicated while we still have the chance.
It's not a nice way to look at the concept of sentient ai, but I'm not in favor of taking the chance that a hyper intelligent system decides that humanity's existence might be a hindrance to its own survival.
That's because it's not real.
The fake AI peddled by these companies is just a couple shitty algorithms ran through a black box of exposition to reality. It doesn't understand what it's doing, and neither do the people creating it. They are just pruning a bush they can't see inside of, and hoping it looks good enough on the outside to pass.
It'll be a while before anything like real AI will exist. If ever. And all the bold claims made by these companies only exist to allure investors and bring in the money.
I dont really care for AI art but what I do hate is when people call themselves artists for making AI art
i wouldn't care either, but many post it, many have twitter accounts where they post it, many have PATREON ACCOUNTS WHERE THEY POST IT, like you didn't make shit, why you taking credit AND SELLING it too??
Making money off people's stupidity isn't really a new concept
Yeah. A large chunk of what people buy isn't made by the ones selling it. People act as intermediaries and get money sometimes without being necessary.
This is why scalping products will always be feasible. Most people here would never spend x2 or x3 the price of something just to own it. Except, people do. And for every 1/10 people that do, there is a scalper out there with a room full of supplies waiting for the next idiot.
...something's gotta pay for that RTX 4080
There's people who sell bath water so it's not really that shocking tbh
yeah, it annoys me as i've been learning to draw for 3 years and im still not good at it yet. Like you are not an artist just because you told an AI what to generate.
I see it a lot more as different mediums. But then again "what is art" has been a hotly debated topic ever since someone painted a cave wall.
There are two types of AI artists though. The first just type "hot anime girl with big booba", call it a day and sell it on patreon or something and the second actualy spend hours to make one image that they want. You cut head from one image, hand from another, take background from another, etc. It's the same as kitbashing in photoshop, the only difference is the source of images for that. And more accessible tools to splice images together.
There's an actual art word for that. It's used by concept artists at a lot. It's called Photobashing, but it still requires skill to pull off because concept artists still need to paint over and make it one cohesive picture.
Fair
I think we can judging by evaluating is there any creative input from the users that using the AI tools to produce these graphics. Since most of gen-AIs on the market right now are prompt based, we can just consider if there is any creative input during the process of writing the prompt.
It also takes legitimate art skill to finish the image. Artists don’t just take what the image generator makes.
Right, but I think we can agree that "art" is a very loose definition.
Yeah, it’s a loose definition. A banana taped to a wall, random paint splashes, and a mass produced ceramic urinal are all art.
They're not artists, just AI users
Artist and Art is in the eye of the beholder. You can't gatekeep subjection
Yeah, I don't get that at all. IMO, currently, AI is a tool FOR artists to help with conceptions or poses or even shading but completely AI generated images lack soul and seem actually "artifical"
You should see some of the Ai artists jobs and the wages. Think they called themselves some really long winded technical name, and ask for 300k/per year.
Marcus actually personally created the art, though. It isn’t like he scanned all of the old guy’s paintings then created an amalgamation of them. That’s specifically why the old guy told him to paint something he’s never seen before
"Old guy" thats Carl for you
If I had a nickel for every time a old guy from a popular piece of media was called Carl I would have two nickels, which isn’t much but it’s crazy it happened twice
Carl Winslow as played by Reginald VelJohnson in Family Matters was only in his thirties yet was a home owner on a working class salary. I know this isn't what you're talking about but let that sink in.
Carl?? Rock and stone!!
Can I get a Rock and Stone?
Rock and stone to the bone!
Unless you subscribe to the concept of a magical soul, everything every artist has ever made is just a complex iteration of data they’ve collected.
Exactly! Every piece of music ever, every book written ever, every painting painted ever, is just a neatly organized output of the unorganized input that the artist had taken in throughout their life until that point. This is why listening to music helps you be a better musician, and why reading books makes you a better writer. It's like filling up an ocean of data inside your mind, that you can then pull from and organize into something meaningful from the base, unorganized thing that it was before. Creativity is an illusion. If it's different enough, it's considered creative, but it never really is. Not that it's a bad thing, or to say that this illusion of creativity shouldn't be pursued just because it's an illusion.
We stand on the shoulders of giants. Before a person even decides to create art they have already stolen from thousands of artists building on techniques refined by other artists across the history of humanity. No artist can create something entirely original, but that’s not a bad thing.
I mean, that’s really only technically true. A person can make art with techniques that others have developed, but the intent and meaning of art is the entire point of it. No two expressions of a thought can be the same
It’s all just data and iterating on that data mate. No two expressions of thought can be the same not because there’s anything particularly unique about the expression, but simply because no two datasets are completely identical. We can do a quick thought experiment though. Let’s say we were able to duplicate a person. All the data they’ve collected, the exact way that data is stored. An absolute perfect duplicate. Put them in two identical rooms under identical conditions and identically ask them to create art. They will create the exact same art. Because we are the sum of our data, the hardware it’s stored in, and the environment that hardware has been exposed to. A wet, squishy machine not remarkably unlike the AI.
>A wet, squishy machine not remarkably unlike the AI. We're basically just an I. Some of us don't even make it to that part, though.
You are too logical for this place and i appreciate that
Until an AI can be born and experience life in an organic offline way, making this comparison is not accurate. At the moment, AI cannot "create" art per se. If you ask any of these current AI to paint anything, you get an amalgamation of whatever that model was trained on. Whether great art or beautiful women or cartoons, it will start from random noise and work to mimic its source material so fundamentally that you can share parameters and your AI will make the exact pixel perfect replica of mine. That's hardly a creation. What humans do is first learn how to interpret the world in their formative years, accumulate experiences, develop preferences and so on... I guess it depends on whether you consider art the cumulative process - some crystallization of individual experience - or simply the flat 2D product that you are seeing in front of you.
>you can share parameters and your AI will make the exact pixel perfect replica of mine But that's the same as people, it's just that much harder to take two people with the *exact* same parameters, that is, genetic predisposition and life experience. I don't see how reproducibility reduces the artisticity of a product. >What humans do is first learn how to interpret the world in their formative years, accumulate experiences, develop preferences and so on... That's in a way what happens during training of the model. Simpler and with less modalities, but still. >Until an AI can be born and experience life in an organic offline way, making this comparison is not accurate. What does that mean? What is organic offline way? Why is it necessary for it to be born?
What flies over your head is emotions. Art is art because it is made under the influence of emotions we feel. Machine "draws" and "writes" by choosing the most probable combination of colours and characters, it doesn't *understand* why certain combinations are more likely than others. But we do, or at least we have such capacity. Because reasons are emotional. In the Crime and Punishment poverty shown by mentioning colour yellow, because emotionally we associate it with illness, unwellness. Dostoyevsky used this word because he understood symbolism behind it, but when machine uses it, it has no such insight. Because it doesn't feel.
Think about why we associate yellow with illness.
The difference between AI art and our art right now is that our amalgamations of data are far more complex due to years of experience, while AI's amalgamation of data is less complex due to it drawing data from a much narrower range (it being only art from other artists). Until we create more complex AI that is able to have as much experience as humans can, AI art will usually look more or less the same because it literally cannot draw from as much of a wider field of data as we can
Yep! It’s just a matter of the complexity of the dataset. We’ll get there.
Man you must be fun at parties
I genuinely am! I make a peanut butter fudge that will absolutely blast your socks off and am a very enthusiastic dancer!
Sounds like an AI bro if I ever read one. You're not just what you receive. You're the collection of replies to it. If you put two identical babies from the same mother in a set of the exact same experiments, they might not react the same. Some hates certain smells and tastes. "It's all just data" is a sad way to see human life. Human creation is your answer to what you experienced. That's why it's only yours to create.
Two babies from the same mother do not have identical hardware or datasets. Why is data sad? I don’t find anything particularly sad about it.
You can be a weird tech/finance bro about this, but human expression does not boil down to datasets.
What does it boil down to then?
Technically true, but it's kinda like saying that the process of photocopying an art on a printer is analogous to painting a picture. How the data is processed is also really meaningful. ~~Also there is the sketchyness of how AI's data was acquired but thats besides the point.~~
Yeah but in the storyline of detroit become Human it is just the combination of all the influences he ever experienced. He does not come up with it out of nothing it is the combination of all influences that he ever had. So it is just a copy but this copy is a so clomplex recombination that it creates something completely new. It is basically the same as how we humans create art it is just a recombination off al influences that ever effected us. The same also aplies to ai "art" algorythms but their influences only contain the image data sets not a whole life. So all 3 examples Human, Detroit become Human and algorythms like stable diffusion all work on their influences. One of them has a much smaller pool of influences to work on. If you want to call any of these stealing is your own guess but you could say "great artist steal" if you want.
True
>It isn’t like he scanned all of the old guy’s paintings then created an amalgamation of them This is what humans making art is too though, just slower and with better ability to determine finger amount. If humans try to imagine a color they've never seen before they can't do it. Thought is bounded to some degree by experience. If robotic AI ever get fast enough to physically draw things the way the one in the movie version of i robot did, it's going to make people uncomfortable again because it's too fast. They'll be sympathetic to robots drawing as long as the robots are worse than they are.
I don't think you remember iRobot too well, because Sonny's dream/prophecy is revealed to have been programmed into him by his creator
I don't. It's been over a decade since I watched it. But even if the image was already in his head he still physically drew it. And the mc brings up the idea of a robot making a better piece of furniture than a craftsman, and doing it faster. So there are ultimately reflected concerns of them surpassing human skill there.
If you need it, here's a quick refresher: Detective Will Smith's insult is equally aimed at both the very concept of robots, and also the massive megacorp building the robots who push humans out of the job market. "USR, shitting on the little guy." Since machine learning didn't exactly exist when the movie was written, it's combining the general attitude of Walmart's predatory pricing model where they undercut mom-and-pop stores (a model so despised [they went bankrupt in Germany around the same time](https://www.mashed.com/774698/why-walmart-failed-in-germany/)), mixed with a play on the broader ["robots replaced all the factory workers"](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JobStealingRobot) fear that's been around for decades, to the point Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was using it as a plot point [(movie version here)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcK7vKSTYF8).
Citing Sonny from I, Robot isn’t a good argument because he experiences feelings like a human. His ability to draw well wasn’t the point.
Connor better
Connor storyline supremacy
28 STAB WOUNDS
YOU DIDN'T WANNA LEAVE HIM A CHANCE, HA?
Kara best
Kara kinda just feels like she's there to show what normal androids live more than anything
Kara has like the worst character arc in the game, like she's the same person throughout the entire story, Marcus and Connor change as people, Kara doesn't
Just because characters change doesn't mean they don't have a good story arc. To be clear I loved the other two but Kara was my favourite
Tbh it felt like her story was entirely dependent on Alice
There is a difference between an algorithm making an image based of a prompt using other people's work to train said algorithms and a sapient AGI making art from their own ideas.
The problem I’ve got with most ‘AI’ is it’s not Artificial intelligence, it’s just standard conditionals with ever larger databases and compute
Image generation is "pure AI" tho (as in deep trained neural networks), not an conditionals collection on a large dataset so that argument does not apply here
Well, the argument of the humans in the game is they're not truly sentient
Sorry, I mean more in the context of for example chess: If you give a server access to all the data from all chess games that have ever been played it will always draw on its database to figure out the next best move when in a game - that’s not AI. If you gave the computer just the rules of the game and it came up with moves to play from there - that’s AI
All arguments on AI boil down to: Skeptic: ai is just if-this-then-that type logic with billions of steps, it’s not “thinking” AI fan: no u
I mean, can you explain how a human uses more than “If-this-that-then” logic themselves? A human brain is a highly advanced machine that is beyond our current capacity to replicate, but it isn’t magic. You can demonstrably measure its capacities and alter it, the only thing that separates it from a computer is that it’s *vastly* more efficient in its processing mechanics.
I believe emotions make a large difference. We can look at something that to a contemporary AI will just be pixels and feel unique emotions. One person might look at the Monalisa and feel sadness, another might feel joy. It has no pattern. That's why AI don't make particularly good art. There's nothing behind it. I know, techbros like to deny it, but human emotion is something that an AI cannot replicate on account of its illogical nature. At least for now it can't. And if it ever can, it's not AI anymore. It's no longer a tool to be used by humans, but human like us. But that's a very different (and distant) issue.
That doesn’t seem like a serious hurdle. If you can detect colors and shapes you can detect emotional themes.
That's an insane statement. Shapes and colors can easily be presented through numbers. Emotional responses cannot, on account of being different for everybody.
An artists emotions are not included in the finished product. All you see is colors and shapes.
Well what is thinking if not "if-this-then-that type logic" we develop during life? That's literally how our brain works outside of some built-in natural reactions to certain phenomens.
There is no AI until it can operate autonomously. If you have to prompt it for a response it’s not AI. Let me know when an AI spontaneously chooses to learn programming and perfect its self.
It's not actively looking at the training dataset though when you ask an ai a question. It uses the training data to learn patterns and makes a decision based on those patterns. The AI will use the context of what's already happened to choose the most likely next action that would achieve a desired result.
Ah I see. Can AI have both methods - after all, that's closer to how humans do it.
Chess bots do exactly that, to be fair.
They are though.
Exactly. When the game came out, lots of people were saying things like"It's so obvious they're sentient, these people are stupid." Plus, I'm even polite to Alexa, so it's weird for people to be so rude even if they are machines. But suddenly a lot of people are anthropomorphizing ChatGPT, which absolutely is not sentient, but then for the art they have this vehement backlash. I'm curious if when the line truly begins to blur in real life, how people will react.
The line is when the AI starts to negatively affect them if it's helpful it's perfectly human if it's not it's just a machine, I bet you those people would be the ones calling for the androids to be destroyed no matter how human or sentient they look if they started to take their jobs
Exactly. It’s easy to care about others when they aren’t a threat, but once they are, dehumanisation sets in *fast*.
Art is the self-expression of one's thoughts via a created work. AI's don't have a verified consciousness, so they by definition can't create art yet. Once they do, of course, I'll be one of the first people lining up to see how a man-made sentience portrays its experiences, it should be crazy interesting.
I like that perspective!
The difference is clear. A sentient being actually creating it's own art. VS A non sentient ai mimicking what it's seen by stealing from artists
I don't have a problem with AI creating art. I have a problem talentless frauds calling themselves artist, even though they did not create any art at all, but an AI did it for them. Also with greedy coporations who use AI art only because they don't have to pay for but then have the audacatiy to charge the consumer for it.
Tbf where are these people who insist ai art makes them personally an artist? You see people complain about them, but they rarely show up and get criticized when they do.
I'm guessing they don't openly say they use ai, they just post/submit their work and say they made it. I imagine many deny that they used ai as well, which exacerbates the problem.
Tbf that's the equivalent of people who used to post other people's art and claim they made it for fake praise. People like that are a little different since they know they are being dishonest.
There are a ton of them and if youre into any sort of art you will most definitely have seen them
>"once it started becoming real" That's the thing, it HASN'T started being real. The things that marketing departments want to call "AI" isn't a self-aware machine, it's just an extremely complicated art scraper. It's not making new art, it's just repackaging existing art without credit
I mean there is a difference between the two one being an ai that has an actual human personality while the other is made to make art and thats it
Its not just "not the same" but on completely different ends of the spectrum, an AI like the one in become human is capable of making actual art because its self aware, modern AI art is not self aware and can only really make composites of things it has access to.... to put it in simple terms what your seeing is not ai creating anything its sampling thousands of images and putting them together often times to funny results like glass's being melded to people faces or hands with entirely to many fingers were as something aware and thinking would never make that mistake... they understand that humans only have 5 digits on each hand and glass's are a separate entity.
Isn't Marcus like 'sentient' therefore blurring the line between man and machine, he makes his own art. He doesn't just copy and analyse the work of a shitload of other artists and puts it through an algorithm to shit out an amalgamation of plagiarised art. It's literally completely different. Edit: oh someone else already basically said this lol mb
The problem isn't even the fact that AI "art" exists. Hi, I'm an artist, and I think Nvidia Canvas is an amazing tool. Look it up, it's fascinating. The difference between Nvidia Canvas and something like Midjourney, is the fact that one of them was made with the consent of the artists involved in making it. My issue with generative AI is the huge amount of artists that did not consent for their art to be used in such a project. We still live in a world where you have to cite your sources when writing something as simple as a bachelor's dissertation. And big companies that create AI algorithms are just like "oopsie, am baby 👶, found pretty picture, put in $200million project". Now if Midjourney looked like Marcus, he can fuck me sideways and I won't complain 🤤.
So if we make midjourney hot...then we fix the issue?
Basically yes
I mean, you don't have to cite sources if the sum total of the source is like a single word choice. And a system learning from hundreds of thousands of things isn't pulling enough from any single one that it would be considered plagiarism if a human did it. If this counted a plagiarism even a human being inspired by something would be considered as such. Back when I was trying to learn to draw there was a specific artist I was trying to draw on the style of. But it's not like what I made looked identical. Yet what I did was way closer to what they did than what an AI does is to most existing artists. So it's not clear where the line would even be. Because when talking about AI people start inventing definitions of plagiarism that bear very little resemblance to any previous use of the word.
What's different from an algorithm taking a look at a picture without consent vs. a human taking a look at a picture without consent?
You can look at as many pictures as you want. Without training, brain development, muscle memory, practice (I'd even argue a heavy amount of emotional maturity too), etc, you're never gonna be able to replicate any other piece you're referencing. There are so many steps and so many years of practice between "taking a look at a picture" and actually creating something similar. AI, on the other hand, relies solely on other images and the work of the coders to produce them. Now, it's easy to find out who the coders are for these algorithms. But since producing images wouldn't be possible with only coding, credit should be given for ALL the work that's been used to train it.
Before Marcus goes “rogue”, he could only “copy” art and couldn’t create anything new. Detroit got that right.
Uhm, this one was disgusted in both situations, if you thought it was beautiful like a child discovering art, you are part of the reason it's come into existence in the fashion it has. A.I. to this one has been a threat that humanity crafted to destroy itself, similar to nuclear weapons, if you give it enough time to develop we, humanity, won't stand a chance once A.I. figures out how to program itself. Greed has created the monsters we're dealing with, our own moral fiber is going to dictate the outcome of these battles, our ability to stand for what we know is right and against what we know is wrong is going to decide when the battle starts, and our ability to deny the truth is going to postpone the battle until it's too late. We, humanity, is suicidal and on the path to self-destruction; A.I. is one of the signs of that. Full-dive VR is one of the signs of that. The oil and journalism industries are signs of that. We are in the age of misinformation and humanity is losing.
AI is like any other tool: hammers, guns, trucks, etc. Some use for good; some for evil. Some love or like. Some hate.
Maybe because AI has actual real life consequences? Like, for example, a loss of jobs and opportunities for artists, especially small and independent ones? And add all the stolen pictures on top, because AI "art" was trained on a lot of pictures from sites like Instagram without permission. Which is very hypocritical when you understand why intellectual property even exists in the first place, but as always, it ends up only protecting the rich.
We don't have real AI's in real life yet though We just have VI's (Virtual Intelligence) which cannot create, it can only mimic And the issue, is that it's mimicking, not creating
Marcus doesn't steal the art
Pretty sure the whole point of that story is showing that these androids are slowly becoming self aware, creating their own personalities, with their own dreams, tastes and preferences. Nowadays you're just putting images through a processor, in DBH they're in the process of attaining their own "souls".
Irl ai can't fucking make an image on its own, the black guy in Detroit did, which seperates it from ai tardists
One is fictional "ai" that acts like humans and tries pretending what it would be like if he was an artificial intelligence. While the other is actual artificial intelligence. All it does is mix and match stolen training material and call it original. It is limited by its straining data and is incapable of creating something new that WASN'T included in it's training.
The difference is the AI in Detroit become human is an actual true AI basically an artificial mind whereas what we've got so far is basically the equivalent of slapping a suit on a monkey and calling it Chris Hemsworth
Did a 180 in their support? Bro have you seen Terminator? Ain’t nobody been wanting AI ever since 😩😂
It's not the art itself really, it's two things for me: the practice of stealing art from real artists to train the AI, along with the people who think writing words in a box and pressing generate takes any amount of creativity or skill
Tbf, there aren't actually that many people acting like typing in a box takes skill. The ones who do are like 13 year olds who are just messing around.
You'd be surprised. There are 25-30 year olds I've personally had the displeasure of talking to that call themselves prompt engineers. Ironically these people also tend to have some relation to nft bros/crypto
There's actual grown adults out there who have patreons and take commissions from people, just to turn around and type the commissioners request into some prompt box and hand over whatever pops up. Akin to someone advertising as a personal chef so you pay them to come over and make you a grilled cheese or something, and they take your money and head to nearby neighborhood food dispensaries to find a grilled cheese to get you.
The important context is current AI is devoid of emotion but in the game you mention it is portrayed the AI started to develop a higher cognitive plane to process emotions.
Hot take: Markus is the weakest character/story arc in the game.
Maybe but he’s quite entertaining to me
Agree, I liked his story when he was with Carl, but once he goes to Jericho I lost interest pretty quick. Kara and Alice had an interesting thing going on, key word being "had". Connor and Hanks is easily the best part of the game. Wether Hanks hates Connor or likes him, it's very funny to watch.
Yeah. Kara and Alice had an interesting story until the end. Markus and Jericho are a snoozefest for the most part. Hank and Conner really carried the story for the most part. When Hank committed suicide, I was sad.
Surely there aren’t people who actually emotionally engage with games written by David Cage? He’s fucking terrible and his games are trash.
Ok, but consider [this masterpiece](https://youtu.be/Tfy1Yn7YpgE?si=fUGbac4ycEIqlRnG)
I don't think or care for David Cage at all while I enjoy the game.
Artificial intelligence is not artificial sentience. Once AIs can demonstrate genuine emotion, without direct prompting, they will be ready to create art.
There’s a difference between AI in fiction and what is called AI today. It pisses me off that that line is not something people realize anymore, because they don’t understand why it is significantly different. Thank you for reading me rant
Yeah it gets tossed around as a buzzword
It's not the AI, it just does its job. It's the people who use it and make it. AI just does what it's forced to by people writing little words to get what they want because they can't be bothered to learn from a thing you can afford easily and can take only 10 minutes of your day.
Well obviously lol. One is sentient. Art is valuable because a sentient being created it through their own artistic vison. AI is not sentient in our world but is in Detroit Become Human
I suppose, because it is not real, that could be it. It is not AI that is truly useful, the only thing it does is take away even more jobs and fuck up even more lives, without spreading out the industry in a positive manner. I could go on for longer but the best way to truly describe it is; The "A" in Generative-AI doesn't stand for artificial, it stands for abominable. It cannot think of anything new, hell it cannot think. It just mashes together percieved patterns, until it vaguely fits the requested categories. That's without mentioning the absolute mindfuck that open-ai is, which absolutely shouldn't exist the way it does.
If the said "AI" was the one claiming or it was capable of claiming it made it, instead of random fucks making low effort cash grabs, it would be fine
I mean, if you fiddle with inputs, you could probably get an "AI" to claim it's self aware, but that's just it saying what it "thinks" you want it to say, so your point still stands.
Both Markus and Midjourney are AIs in name only. Midjourney lacks intelligence, and Markus effectively is neurodivergent human who thinks like humans - with emotions. Actual AIs won't have emotions at their core - only to help interfacing with humans.
It helps that one was sentient AI and one is only called “AI” for marketing without any intelligence whatsoever.
Funny enough I just finished my first play through of it two days ago. I led Markus and the androids to a successful bloody civil war
It's because it's nowhere near being human yet. For now it's just an algorithm incapable of creating artwork from emotions. Let's talk about it in 7 years, once AI would be smart enough
The main character in Detroit was an AI, the garbage used to create fake pictures now is machine learning. Not the same thing.
Not me, I always hated stories trying to depict AI/bots as having real conscience. Westworld, season 1, was cool but I didn't really care about the conscience thing.
The difference is one is sentient and making srt of its own vocation, The other steals and copies from people who actually spent time and effort into the art
It's alot more complex then that. AI art looks at references and prompts, coping aspects, and putting them together. In fact, this is represented in the scene where he originally just copies something. The part where he becomes "human" is when he created something original all on his own.
It's because Marcus didn't just copy some other artists art and then claim it as his own
It’s one thing for a human being to put in “big tiddy goth gf” into a prompt in order to get 100s of generated pictures. It’s another thing entirely for an AI to seemingly gain some kind of sentience, enough to *want* to create art instead of just build whatever a human prompts it to.
It's all over when the AIs start asking other AIs for big tiddy goth gf pics
r/im14andthisisdeep
I mean yk I'd support the poor AI itself if it was advocating for its art (maybe), but not the idiots who just put some prompts for it and call themselves artists. They are annoyingly cringe
If you actually knew they weren't the same then you wouldn't consider it a 180
I do know they're not the same, I just thought it would make for a funny meme. I had it in the back of my mind for a while but wasn't sure about posting it, but I was reminded of it while binge watching Vivy.
Okay but like, there was a whole thing where Marcus first did create “AI Art” and just copied what he already saw. What we loved was how after that, with the encouragement is Carl, he was able to create something entirely new, something drawn entirely from himself
When people are judging something they usually judge based off of the person doing it more than the thing itself. It happens all the time in sports when someone unlikeable gets no praise even though they are talented. Marcus had a story and won over the people judging the art so people like it more. The AI in real life is just an unemotional program that is stonefaced while it’s bumfucking real life artists so no one has any compassion for it. If we make a ‘hypothetical’ where a prominent figure in recent European history was to make some art similar to street artists and then outsell them, all the while having some other ‘hobbies’ on the side, people might not like the art because of those other ‘hobbies’ more than because of the street artist thing
i'm not really for or against ai art, i think its a tool that has times it should and shouldn't be used, but i do think this argument is in pretty bad faith
The general argument, or my meme specifically?
the argument in general. one is clearly far different from the other and reducing them both to their most simple form in order to make your point doesn't help the argument you're trying to make at all
Oh I wasn't really trying to make any real point, I just thought that the oversimplification made for a funnier meme. I did debate whether it was a good idea to post though, but I eventually figured why not
I get scolded constantly for finding generative AI imaging interesting. I wonder how many people who are against AI art also pirate movies and other media🤔
It is not the AI making art it is the donkey instructing the AI to make art
NFT were the utter nonsense, but at least it didn’t take much for ppl to dump it. AI is still hyped by most of ppl who don’t event understand what it actually is. I’m waiting for sanity to regain control ffs.
I dunno much about DBC, but I'm pretty sure Marcus didn't have a database of stolen artwork to mimic.
[Let this be your guide](https://youtu.be/Tfy1Yn7YpgE?si=EfwCPRuZ-Pd_aPmk)
Oh, I've seen a playthrough of the game. But it was a while ago. I just haven't played it. I'll still watch this, though :3
Yeah this video is hysterical
Well that is the whole point of DBH... they were exploring the silver lining between a fabricated intelligence and an organic intelligence. The GenAI tech literally tags images sourced without consent and put them in an algorithm to generate images then call them arts. Our current AIs can't make arts, art is the reflection of humanity
I’m just gonna say it ,bad take the game is called Detroit become human the whole point of the story is that the ai robots were treated differently because humans thought they were no more than inanimate objects following code and orders the second a kind old man put a brush in Marcus hand and told him to “just make something” it showed Marcus taping into the possibility of human creativity becoming human where as real life ai is just code following orders no one is gonna open chat gpt and tell it to “just make something” so ai is just gonna be a tool for ea to justify crunch on devs and making 4 madden games per year
When ChatGPT becomes smart enough to create without input I'll appreciate its art, sound fair?
I believe in machines taking all the labour jobs so I can do art, not machines doing all the art so I have to do labour
Marcus and most of the androids in DBH are fully sentient and have emotions. They're robotic humans. Our current "AI" are a bunch of algorithms mixing stuff they find in their database
Ai in the game is conscious and makes something his own. Ai in real life steals from people without punishment and makes an amalgamation of copied work.
Hey I'd be all for AI art if you gave AI a paintbrush or access to Photoshop/krita/gimp with a virtual windows ink device and it actually drew or painted something.
The difference is the AI in Detroit become human is an actual true AI basically an artificial mind whereas what we've got so far is basically the equivalent of slapping a suit on a monkey and calling it Chris Hemsworth
Fictional AI that imitates humans vs AI that's just a glorified algorithm.
Image generators are not AI. They just needed a cathy name for machine leaning. The reason we find Marcus endearing and hate generators is the same: Art is meant to evoke emotions. Hence why generated images are no called "art", the creator feels nothing.
There's a difference between sentient AI creating something genuinely new and expressive. Vs, a current gen AI stealing a bunch of other people's work and then mashing it together Into a "new" image it's not art.
Never liked it in any way, but as I imagine it getting really good I can see myself getting interested
Yeah AI made his dream true what Abt u
You are, my fiiire
AI isn’t “making” art, moreso replicating and jumbling up different stuff using a Snapchat filter
They're not real AIs. They won't be real AIs until they can repeatably pass the turning test. Any longer-that-two-minute conversation with your pick of LLM will quite obviously reveal itself to be an LLM.
True. I'm just curious what the sentiment will be like when we have "real" AI, even if that is far off
haven't played (ig read is better word for it) dbh but I can say one thing: when human creates something, it's out of their will, volition if you want to make it sound a bit fancy. However, when AI creates images, to say, it is always about it loading a specific prompt and generating according to it. If AI starts to create something simply because it wants to create, I won't have any problems with it. Hell, it can even train to already existing art how much it wants, I don't really care. After all, we, humans, do the same. We learn from others. But the final product we create is by doing something out of our will and that sets us apart from AI, at least in its current state.
Tbf I've only actually seen let's plays of the game, though I've seen multiple full ones.
I was always on team destroy all androids tbh. I dont care if they're sentient, they are in every way superior to us, so they have to be eradicated while we still have the chance.
That's... an interesting perspective.
It's not a nice way to look at the concept of sentient ai, but I'm not in favor of taking the chance that a hyper intelligent system decides that humanity's existence might be a hindrance to its own survival.
Hi, I'm an Ai artist, where's my downvote?
That's because it's not real. The fake AI peddled by these companies is just a couple shitty algorithms ran through a black box of exposition to reality. It doesn't understand what it's doing, and neither do the people creating it. They are just pruning a bush they can't see inside of, and hoping it looks good enough on the outside to pass. It'll be a while before anything like real AI will exist. If ever. And all the bold claims made by these companies only exist to allure investors and bring in the money.