A continued have a look at what is going on on in AI. This time we check out all the things from AutoGPT and a pretend AI Drake to AI artwork and …
source
Tags: aiAltraideAppleartartificial intelligenceartificial intelligence newsartificial intelligence news 2023ColdfusionDagogoevolvingFacebookfasterGooglelatest news about robotics technologylatest robotslatest robots 2023machine learningrobot newsrobotics newsrobotics news 2023robotics technologies llcrobotics technologySamsungtechnologyteslaTV
The newer algorithms for midjourney are beating DALL-E and stable diffusion for making RPG character tokens.
Asks AI what its only pet peeve is? Hands.
SHAME ON YOU MAN!!!!!
A.I. CAN create Art but never a Photograph…🤷🏾♂
The artist fear and push back is just panic like the textile worker smashing power loom weaving machines in 1800s. People will always want to by human hand drawn art. It is the prestige of hand craft. If cost is everything, we wouldnt have handcraft soap, hand tailored suit, or scuptures
I think ai can be used as an assisting tool, but if you use it for everything it shouldn't deserve protection.
The comic book story. I think it's fine but it should have been disclosed.
You shouldn't use anyone's art without permission to train the ai. You need permission and to pay them, perhaps even for a lifetime.
Good. Artists are mostly liberal and love to inject their politics into everything. Can't stand it and am very happy for AI to take over from biased humans.
If you look at the hands and the out of focus areas, the image that won the Sony contest is obviously an AI image. I would think that as a judge of such a competition you should be able to tell apart a real photo from an artifical one. And the fact that it even won first prize makes me think that the whole issue might have staged by Sony itself to raise awareness of the situation, which is a good thing. I just don't buy it that the judges couldn't identify this image as an AI image, and the pure chance that exactly this image won.
Damn, I'm predicting that ai art won't be getting any copyright protection, but instead, indirectly, it will increase the value of a human drawn art.
Eventually AI created movies will be made but they won't be getting copyright protection.
Also, it may become so that the AI companies maybe ordered to pay the artists for getting their creations as a data set, & thus the big companies buying out those AI companies, & then making THEIR ai work as copyrighted. !
You know, the painting of the Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci, it's not a scoop, you can print it, or asked a craftsman or even today has an "AI" printer to make you a replica Alike.
There are a number of vases from the Ming period, which are traded for fortune and well you know what, for probably a few hundred dollars, you can always ask an artisan to make you a "copy". .
The craftsman, the artist, the art, and who produces an object, he is made in the context of his time and with the story that led him to this supreme moment where he created.
You can all have a replica, but trust me, no one is going to shell out millions or take more interest in it than if it was the original work that was crafted by its creator.
Picaso, Monet, Van Gogh, Brueghel, Michealangelo, yes they were inspired, even transmitted techniques to them and even sometimes they were constrained by limited resources in time or in requirements.
Of all those I mentioned, so yes everyone can replicate their style today. Yet they blazed a unique trail, they were unique in their styles.
The car didn't kill the draft horses! AI is a tool, and you will certainly be able to ask everything one day.
You know, by analogy there are two ways to get to Mount Everest. The 1st is by helicopter and in 1 hour and taken a few selfies at the top and consumed the experience without even understanding the act or the meaning, or doing it like an artist and taking the slope with your own inner strength, your original and unique -"creativity", your own story.
It is not the destination the goal but the journey to get there!
I recall the first fully automatic loom at the beginning of the industrial age. How the German weavers tried to weave against it and starved at the loom. The German guild forbade such machines at that time, so that everyone had work and a living. In addition, the guild preserved human creativity and diversity.
AI is just a slave for people who know how to wield it. The reason that picture fooled people is because a human with a “keen” eye knew it would.
Now the “starving artist” has something to blame it on, rather than deal with just not being that talented.
Hire an A.I game creator to fix Fifa Game scripting.
Lmao sarah Anderson??? Filing a law suit ?
Plot twist – this video is created by AI
Why pay for art, when you can print it for “free”?
This doesn't make sense. GPT cannot write you code. No matter if it's ChatGPT or GPT4
I am shook! 😮
Your honor, the AI is nothing but a pencil my client used to draw art, therefore it is intelectual property of my client.
It cannot be stopped because it is too efficient and profitable.
Therefore there is no point in fighting it. There is no way this opportunity will be passed on.
Embrace it, adapt to it, utilize it. Complaints won't change a thing. Not on this matter.
This is like when mp3 /youtube /spotify killed the traditional music industry channels. The jeanny is out of the bottle. You can sue them, you can cry, you csn fight them. No chance. Better use the new Tools for new art forms
We are coming damn close to creating consciousness.
I think it is completely wrong to NOT call AI generated images art. Especially when a banana taped to a wall was sold for 120 000 dollars. Or then there is this woman artist Milo Moiré, who painted pictures using her vagina. And this was by some considered art. I guess all the resistance comes from people losing money. I think in a world where there are no copyright and money limitations this would not be such a big of a deal. Maybe even the artists would endorse this. Seing art made from their art.
I will alway commission Artist, the hardwork they put in to make the work pop out is always amazing.
I enjoying generating ai art wallpaper for myself, I don't need pay or download it online.
I'm a painter visual artist and have recently been using locally installed Stable Diffusion to help with my creative process. I like it and it's been a very interesting process. I don't fear it at all. When I post an image that I've created in this way, for "Medium" I notate "AI-Assisted". I think that's fair and honest and needs to be a standard across all the arts.
Then artists should probably try getting a real job 😂
I've never feared the ai art could replace the human one.. it's just about how humans value each of them.. so it's actually about what this fact is telling us about ourselves… As a species. By now it's not a surprise for me that most of us value the economic efficiency more.. the profit. Nothing new under the great sun
Good artists have nothing to fear. This will only filter out garbage ones.
Art is accomplished by inspirations and intuitions with hidden truths and mesages. If AI reflects that same skills, we can respect its genuity just like the pictures of billionaires in poor neighborhoods. However, often AI work is copy and paste using data already out there created by human artists. Even though we call human art performances stealing, it takes a lot of time and energy with the possibilities of birthing next chains of creative work. This is not the case with AI.
greaThanks
I deeply appreciate your input on the matter. I believe we're traveling through the same path that led the music industry to the Compact Disc era. Once we get there, people will start to go back to cassettes and LP's. Why? I don't know. Recently a store specialized in the Hi-Fi LP's market received some backlash from costumers when a reporter discovered they've been "copy/pasting" the same digital mixed version of the albums into LP's, only these are freaking expensive. The thing is: their costumers praised themselves for being audiophiles but they didn't know they were being fooled; but they praise the vintage format so I highly doubt they will go back to buying regular CD's or downloading from any digital platform. Art will become so cheap in the AI peak that, eventually, people will praise the human made art so much, it'll become more exclusive than ever before
All of these images are incredibly disturbing to me .The videos even more so
long live ai
0:10: 📸 An AI-generated image won first prize in a prestigious photography competition, sparking a debate about the role of AI in photography.
4:50: 🍕 Auto GPT and similar systems are AI agents that can perform tasks for you, like ordering a pizza.
9:10: 🖼 AI image generators using large-scale datasets raise questions about originality and value of human creativity.
13:52: 🖼 Artists file a class action lawsuit against AI art generators for infringing on their artistic identities, and Getty Images sues a stock photo agency for infringing on its copyrights.
18:10: 🤖 AI generated works will become increasingly pervasive, similar to the impact of photography and Photoshop on art.
Recap by Tammy AI
Everything AI generated ≠ Art
I started buying some more AI stocks at the beginning of the year, but nothing big. Why am I treating this so harshly? I still want to be the first person in my polygamous family to make a million dollars despite the fact that others in my field make six figures per person. I am well aware of the costs associated with working more to get more money.
What I am concerned about is the value of things, material and non-material. Art and design to me are not just the end product, they’re the inspiration by the personality and journey behind the product. Even Photoshop requires learning, mastery and human hours spent to produce something. Once we’re over the fascination of a machine’s ability to produce something that is visually or audibly resembling or mimicing human creativity, art and design will have no value because, there will be no material and non-material costs to produce. I’m trying to see what will inspire humans to spend time and effort on creativity in that world and what will give things value and appreciation to humans then.
12:21 – Just like photoshop did to artist. or DAW's did to producers and musicians. Or like what Square Space like sites did to web devs. I took a web dev course and right at the end of my course sites like Wix and Square Space came out. I could cry about it. But I didn't. You move on. You adapt. Or what the calculator device did to the actual job title of calculator. Or what gas and diesel did to the steam engine. Or what the light blub did to candle makers. What did humans do with these new tools? A ton of cool things. People have done bad things with these tools as well so we must be prepared to face those new challenges. But when new tools are introduced….a lot of us do some pretty amazing crap with it. Not to mention it puts power into a novices hands. Photoshop let people that can't really do art or draw at all on paper but can do it digitally with the help of the tools given without hiring a full blown artist. DAW's like Fruity Loops made it easy for a regular old person to make a beat without hiring a legit musician. I am thankful for the guy that gave me a way to play instruments even though I am not a producer/musician nor can I play anything outside of a kazoo. Why do people that work in an industry think they own said industry? If someone changes the game and you can't adapt……Darwin. My dad was born in the 40's and hates computers. Why? Its new to him. His kids love computers and do awesome things with the tool. Nothing lasts forever. Manually made art will follow the route of the can opener. You can do it if you want. But its unnecessary cause a device can easily do it for you. You can't manually paint water colors till the end of time. Everyone is copying something they saw and even new things are based on a dataset we call memory. You sensed it somehow and logged it to memory. Any art you make after that was influenced in some way by seeing that art or non art and logging that to memory. You can open a file and point to where the the Mona Lisa JPEG is stored but you can't open a dude head and do the same thing. But it is there if he or she has seen it. Not in JPEG format but its there. So any image publicly viewable….well I don't see any issue making a data set from them. A human does it but 100% of their influence when making art is not from publicly available images. A human sees and senses things in the open world too. AI does not. So…alot of an AI's experiences are gonna come from publicly available things. I mean we don't let it go out to play or have a life or nothing to gain those experiences. But thats just my $0.02 on it. AI excites me. With AI you could make programing almost as easy as Square Space makes making a website. AI can take existing ideas and spin them in a way you would never have thought. Watch a new version of a movie by asking your AI assistant to make a new flick by mixing Mission Impossible, Matrix, Dragon Ball Z and Golgo 13 into a new exciting story. And it just does it. That would be awesome