I never thought it would bother me, until I actually sat in a car where everything was dependent on software the first time.
At first I thought I was just getting old. But it dawned on me that relying on software to fucking roll down the windows or starting the car doesn’t feel too good.
(It was also an extreme jump in technology for me because the last car I drove before that was an old Corsa around the year ~2005.)
In theory, he doesn’t know whether he’s the only one. They could all be fake Nazis and no one knows.
At this point, I’d rather like to see edgelords go extinct.
By the artist Skrumpgoblin
You do realise that the models stole the art from people all over the world, yes? It’s not like someone in Indonesia drawing fan art can simply profit off their own work the way people like you now can.
I also think this attitude (“just get a job to support your hobby while I get to profit of your work”) shows an overall lack of respect for artists.
“Soul” is the word we use for something we don’t scientifically understand yet. Unless you did discover how human brains work, in that case I congratulate you on your Nobel prize.
You can abstract a complex concept so much it becomes wrong. And abstracting how the brain works to “it’s a probability machine” definitely is a wrong description. Especially when you want to use it as an argument of similarity to other probability machines.
Current models aren’t intelligent. Not even by the flimsy and unprecise definition of intelligence we currently have.
Wanted to post a whole rant but then saw vexikron already did so I spare you xD
deleted by creator
As an artist you draw with an understanding of the human body, though. An understanding current models don’t have because they aren’t actually intelligent.
Maybe when a human is an absolute beginner in drawing they will think about the different lines and replicate even how other people draw stuff that then looks like a hand.
But eventually they will realise (hopefully, otherwise they may get frustrated and stop drawing) that you need to understand the hand to draw one. It’s mass, it’s concept or the idea of what a hand is.
This may sound very abstract and strange but creative expression is more complex than replicating what we have seen a million times. It’s a complex function unique to the human brain, an organ we don’t even scientifically understand yet.
In general I agree with you, but AI doesn’t learn the concept of what a circle is. AI reproduces the most fitting representation of what we call a circle. But there is no understanding of the concept of a circle. This may sound nit picking, but I think it’s important to make the distinction.
That is why current models aren’t regarded as actual intelligence, although people already call them that…
I think the difference in artistic expression between modern humans and humans in the past comes down to the material available (like the actual material to draw with).
Humans can draw without seeing any image ever. Blind people can create art and draw things because we have a different understanding of the world around us than AI has. No human artist needs to look at a thousand or even at 1 picture of a banana to draw one.
The way AI sees and “understands” the world and how it generates an image is fundamentally different from how the human brain conveys the object banana into an image of a banana.
$20/mo
good value for people without much money
The absolute majority of people can not afford that. This is especially true for huge part of the art that was used to train various models on.
AI currently is a tool for rich people by rich people which uses the work of poor people who themselves won’t be able to benefit from it.
People pirate and then wonder why small developer studios for example go broke or software becomes more expensive or less plenty. It’s so dumb it hurts.
No, I mean that they should think of own measurements against illegal media and communication.
Organisations and groups who want to protect privacy should come up with ways themselves on how to protect their services from certain activities.
Since the idea seems to be that pirating digital goods is a moral imperative, the question what are the consequences if everyone would do it is valid.
Build two cases, calculate for both, drag both case through the entirety of both problems, get two answers, make a case for both answers, end up with two hypothesis. Easy!
Do you believe actors etc. would still keep getting paid if everyone would just pirate everything?
But you do understand that if nobody would buy a ticket, there wouldn’t be concerts?
Maybe because the goal of feminism is to have more equally not to bolster the ranks of marginalised people with even more women.
Maybe if men wanted to have more women in these jobs they shouldn’t be so fucking hostile and sometimes dangerous to women.
Maybe if men hadn’t built a society with only men in mind, including when designing equipment, procedures, etc., for these jobs, maybe women had a better chance doing them?