'An Insult To Life Itself': Hayao Miyazaki’s AI Criticism Resurfaces As OpenAI’s Ghibli-Style Image Trend Takes Over Social Media
-
I don't think you have a good handle on what mathematicians do.
Nor what artists really do
-
Again like I said earlier 'they'll take yer jobs' is more about spreading fear and panic. The panic is never truly justified.
The Jobs will change. Bosses will always try to get rid of employees in favour of profits. Immigrants, sorry I mean AI is not a big threat.
Dude, you're the one saying it's ok to replace paid artists with AI, you're the one saying it's able to do their job, you're the one saying that it can take people's job, you just don't feel concerned because you can't imagine you'll be the one being affected, you're the one sounding like a Trumpist "It's ok, it will only affect others!"
I'm done, this is idiotic.
-
Dude, you're the one saying it's ok to replace paid artists with AI, you're the one saying it's able to do their job, you're the one saying that it can take people's job, you just don't feel concerned because you can't imagine you'll be the one being affected, you're the one sounding like a Trumpist "It's ok, it will only affect others!"
I'm done, this is idiotic.
I never said to replace them. I just don't care if they make a living. I prefer AI
-
like in other progressive Nations.
Show me a progressive nation that has decriminalized Fentanyl (which is what the woman was caught for last time).
If we're talking weed, I 100% agree - that should be decriminalized everywhere.
I would argue that they're smuggling in fentanyl precisely because the less dangerous drugs are also illegal, so there's no oversight in making sure they're not laced with the cheaper fentanyl.
-
I don’t see mathematicians pitching a fit that lesser skilled people can use calculators to produce their results. I don’t understand the artists’ complaining that AI allows the lesser skilled people to produce an image of their ideas.
As always, the problem isn’t the tech. The problem is capitalism forcing people into competing with the tech.
-
Fentanyl is a part of the category 'all drugs'. Some places like Uruguay have literally ZERO penalties for drug use recreationally, and they haven't defined limits on the amount for personal use on anything but Marijuana (40g) so the judge would have to decide if the woman was carrying a huge amount or if there was a possibility it was personal use. https://www.tni.org/en/publication/about-drug-law-reform-in-uruguay
That's great. I'm glad and I would love for it to be the case here. Legalization can, at the very least, open up the doors to the glories of capitalism as far as industries to help people with drug addiction, and presumably we'd get the benefits of good clean drugs and all that.
None of that has to do with smuggling fentanyl into a foreign country and your (deserved) deportation afterwards. Also has nothing to do with an administration who thinks it's funny to post an AI generated image satirizing it. Both of those things are no-nos, in my uneducated opinion.
-
I don’t see mathematicians pitching a fit that lesser skilled people can use calculators to produce their results. I don’t understand the artists’ complaining that AI allows the lesser skilled people to produce an image of their ideas.
As always, the problem isn’t the tech. The problem is capitalism forcing people into competing with the tech.
But art is also one of the most fundamental things everyone learns to do. Literal children learn to do art, and doodling is something everyone knows how to do.
Although I do think that the issue is exacerbated by the enthusiast-types who will tune a model on someone's work as a form of vengeance, and smugly brag about how they can have the computer crunch out something approximating their work.
-
While I agree that it's not appropriate, that woman was a drug dealer who returned illegally into the USA - I will shed no tear for her.
You got a link for that? I'm not finding anything online linking Rumeysa Ozturk to anything related to drugs
-
with traditional art you have to put skill, knowledge and personality into your work, with digital art it’s the same thing but with computers, with AI “art” you don’t.
I think many people here have a romantic view of how art is made and never tried AI image generators. Would you be able to tell apart an artist who use reference pictures and one who doesn't?
An artist using references doesn't just copy and paste, there's a whole process of understanding what they're looking at, their interpretation of it, of why it is like that and of how they can learn something new from it, things that AI generators cannot do. And the "romantic" part is essential because that's what art is about. You make art to transmit a message, an emotion, it isn't just about making something "pretty", that's something contemplated only by naive people who never made art or who don't understand it.
-
But art is also one of the most fundamental things everyone learns to do. Literal children learn to do art, and doodling is something everyone knows how to do.
Although I do think that the issue is exacerbated by the enthusiast-types who will tune a model on someone's work as a form of vengeance, and smugly brag about how they can have the computer crunch out something approximating their work.
They’re not replicating children’s art. It’s complex art that takes more study to produce. Children learn math, too. Calculators still help.
-
I don't think you have a good handle on what mathematicians do.
It’s a metaphor.
-
Nah AI is just garbo in general. Any productivity it gives has a noticible drop in quality and capabilities that result in net loss.
Idk, AI generated boilerplate code via Copilot and similar utilities have been useful. I wouldn't trust it to build an entire system, but it does alright at automating mundane shit.
AI in creative fields might be a different story.
-
Pretty sure you don't understand the difference between copywrite and freedom of speech. But that's ok.
no, i definitely do.
copyright is the opposite of freedom of speech. any other interpretation is just bending the truth. what is copyright other than putting a monetary value on data and information as if it were a commodity that can be bought, sold, and owned?
how the fuck is that not directly antithetical to freedom of information? freedom of speech and freedom of information are the same ideas, or at least any true proponent of free speech is a proponent of freedom of information. ig except dense fucking westoids who can’t seem to grasp basic logical concepts.
-
Pretty sure you don't understand the difference between copywrite and freedom of speech. But that's ok.
"You have the right to say and do any art! Except any art based off of anything from the last 100 years. You also can't share any of the art that is the basis for your culture from the last 100 years either. Including the shit no one cares about but is owned by a company that doesn't want to sell it, just sue anyone who cares about it more than they do."
Yes, very freedom, much liberty.
-
Idk, AI generated boilerplate code via Copilot and similar utilities have been useful. I wouldn't trust it to build an entire system, but it does alright at automating mundane shit.
AI in creative fields might be a different story.
AI code has singlehandedly increased vulnerabilities across every industry because the shit code is pushed by people who don't know what they're doing.
Net Negative.
-
no, i definitely do.
copyright is the opposite of freedom of speech. any other interpretation is just bending the truth. what is copyright other than putting a monetary value on data and information as if it were a commodity that can be bought, sold, and owned?
how the fuck is that not directly antithetical to freedom of information? freedom of speech and freedom of information are the same ideas, or at least any true proponent of free speech is a proponent of freedom of information. ig except dense fucking westoids who can’t seem to grasp basic logical concepts.
Yes. Thank you. You definitely don't not only understand the difference between copyright and the freedom of speech you also fail to grasp simple concepts like freedom, commodity, and owned.
Not only that you invented a definition of your own to suit your needs to further your argument which you don't even understand in its most fundamental state.
So you can be simply dismissed without any further adu.
-
"You have the right to say and do any art! Except any art based off of anything from the last 100 years. You also can't share any of the art that is the basis for your culture from the last 100 years either. Including the shit no one cares about but is owned by a company that doesn't want to sell it, just sue anyone who cares about it more than they do."
Yes, very freedom, much liberty.
So you make an art music/picture/story and your friend comes around and makes the same art line I for line, word for word, color for color and makes a killing.
Too bad there wasn't some kind of system in place that could have protected your art from intellectual theaft. But you're right it course the company is hording it.
-
So you make an art music/picture/story and your friend comes around and makes the same art line I for line, word for word, color for color and makes a killing.
Too bad there wasn't some kind of system in place that could have protected your art from intellectual theaft. But you're right it course the company is hording it.
Yep! I'm okay with that, intellectual property is theft, and is even more so when copying is nothing but flipping a 0 into a 1. Everyone online has the right to "steal" the words on the screen I "made".
Copyright is theft of the public. The companies owning your favorite media isn't going to fuck you, let alone give you anything but the privilege to charge you for the licence to borrow media until its inconvenient to them.
-
An artist using references doesn't just copy and paste, there's a whole process of understanding what they're looking at, their interpretation of it, of why it is like that and of how they can learn something new from it, things that AI generators cannot do. And the "romantic" part is essential because that's what art is about. You make art to transmit a message, an emotion, it isn't just about making something "pretty", that's something contemplated only by naive people who never made art or who don't understand it.
Who said that AI art doesn't carry a message or emotions? With AI you can create much easily photorealistic faces that carries twice the emotion than a sketch with frog eyes.
An artist using references doesn’t just copy and paste, there’s a whole process of understanding what they’re looking at, their interpretation of it, of why it is like that and of how they can learn something new from it, things that AI generators cannot do.
Why are you assuming there's no artistic process behind using image generators? Have you ever play around with graphic softwares?
There are a thousand ways you can make art. In the japanese industry they use may techniques that one could consider gimmicks, for example even famous mangaka have assistants who draw for them or they use 3d models or real pictures as backgrounds.
-
AI code has singlehandedly increased vulnerabilities across every industry because the shit code is pushed by people who don't know what they're doing.
Net Negative.
You said ANY productivity. It sounds like you mean amateur productivity.
