idk with the old shorts this was more true, but now if it’s like a quick tips thing or just a preview of a longer video, so long as you’re not scrolling shorts and only scarcely engage with the more informative ones, they seem to have a place. Youtube pushes them to be infinitely scrolled clickbait garbage though so that’s probably the experience for 95% of people.
There’s an interesting technology connections video on how analog clocks can be easier to parse how “far” through the hour/day you are with just a quick glance. Hand almost at the top means the hours almost up, for instance.
A lot easier version is just short hand = the hour, long hand * 5 = the minutes
I would look at the study, while the problem is 100% real and anyone with any empathy should realize is real, to say the study supports it is a bit far fetched. Looking at the scenarios they created and the avatars, it’s all a bit uncanny valley and backrooms sort of feeling. Sort of ps2 graphics but in vr.
E: I think the conclusion puts it best, vr is a good tool for showing people what a lot of women have to deal with, and how terrible it can feel. It’s like rp for people who have trouble empathizing or don’t get why it matters.
This only works if you really like the process and you’re motivated to keep going. I am kind of like that and I still need SOME stuff I’m not totally lost in to feel like I’m not just going insane. Plus you learn so much stuff along the way that if that’s your actual passion project you’re going to have to redo anything anyway.
I was using tracing as a metaphor for stealing their art without permission and using it as a weight in training data, and I said paid to do it as in these companies get massive returns off stealing the ai art. Even locally generated, the scraping was still content stolen without permission.
All artists copy, iterate or regurgitate existing work. What does pay have to do with anything? It’s clearly not a deciding factor for anti ai critics; the original post doesn’t mention payment at all.
I mean not wrong but not fully correct either. AI is generating specifically from the dataset it has. I would say the way AI neurons work is similar to humans, but the AIs data is literally just images and words. That is like 30% of what a human will experience, and they are limited to specifically what their dataset contains. It is incapable of generating outside that dataset. A human is also incapable of generating outside their dataset, but a human is not restricted in their dataset to experiences and things that have already happened, and the experiences are not reflected in just words and images. AI images also tend to average their dataset, so the images end up more generic on average.
Categorically false for art. Ai output quality does get worse when you inbreed it on facts or data based in the real world. The only thing it’s really truly good at is hallucinating, which is a fine way of making art because the quality is entirely subjective.
Do you have a source for that? Everything I’ve read has said the opposite, such as https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.12202
I absolutely agree with things like using it for inspiration or helping create an open source project, but I’m weighing the cost benefit for art and it seems like the long-term is negative for artists and consumers both, even if I might not care in the short term.
Yes they are. And no the AI art doesn’t need to be better, it just needs to be cheaper and good enough. This isn’t adapting to an improvement, it’s adapting to easier access to worse or similar quality. The bigger problem is it’s like if an auto manufacturer had machines that were trained on the other machines, and got consistently worse the fewer human workers there were. It might be better in the short term for everyone but the artists, but in the long term it’s worse for everyone.
Not just their experiences, the mind can create things it has never experienced. Within the confines of what their mind can create, sure. It’s just that one is knowably confined, one is unknowably confined, and COULD go outside of what we currently have.
Not false but I would say most people are not doing that, and you’ll be using models that are not as advanced and don’t have as large a dataset as the big companies. If someone wants to generate them locally and enjoys them then more power to them (though still arguable they’re using ill-begotten data)
If someone gives me art from their kid I will inherently overlook the flaws because I am happy to see them drawing. If I learn it’s from a billion dollar studio, it will drastically change how I view it. If someone asked me to objectively say how good the drawing is I would say it’s terrible. But I’m thinking about the artist so I don’t notice the flaws. If a billion dollar studio made the art I would say “I don’t know how anyone could ever enjoy this” while actively enjoying the 5 year old’s identical art. Just replace the 5 year old with “actual artists” and it’s the same situation. My enjoyment is partially from the person behind it improving and seeing feedback.
I would never say there is no “good” ai art, but I would also say 99.999% of AI art feels very generic. If I see a regular artist draw “good” art that is generic, I will say good job because they drew good art even if I find it generic. If there’s no artist… well it’s just generic “good” art so why would I not just look at an actual artists work for diverse “good” art, while not supporting the energy/water leech that is ai images?
Except for all the artists that are out of work for years and lost all their audience in the meantime, sure. And as we’ve seen with just about everything (Twitter, reddit, youtube), once people are used to something, it being terrible isn’t enough of a reason to move.
If you trace someone’s art or copy their style and were paid to do it yes that is generally frowned upon. And if someone posts their work that IS mainly just other styles combined, you encourage them because they are capable of making something new as they improve, possibly a style no one has seen or a unique take on an existing style. The ai will always be generating in the confines of its training data, and getting WORSE as it is trained on more ai art, not better.
Yes I can enjoy eating a hotdog but if I find out you stole that hot dog from a 13 year old, now I’m too upset that you stole from someone to enjoy it anymore. It’s not that they “don’t like it” anymore, they just hate that it’s ai generated more than they like the image.
I don’t like supporting the thing that steals artists work and then makes a worse version of it. The thing they said “wow this is actually really great” already existed and was stolen to generate the worse one, and now the person who actually created the value gets no credit.
The biggest issue with this (imo) is it pushes artists out for more ai image generation, but ai image generation will only get worse as it’s trained on a greater percent of ai images, so we essentially lose the source of good images for short term ai images.
Idk the majority of people who voted DID vote for Trump, and generally people like Bernie just didn’t get votes because Americans are propagandized against “”“socialism”“”. I guess the DNC basically refuses to give us a good candidate though but I’m not sure how to solve that.
People will agree amazon is evil and needs to have less power but say it’s too convenient and cheap. They’ll say apple is too powerful while buying every new iPhone. I watch people who say I’m privileged spend more money than I do on everything from food to entertainment. Most people really don’t care about enacting their principles, if it means giving up anything or spending 2 minutes of effort. Is what it is I guess.