Frick you, I liked it. AI generated shows are amusing as hell, it's the audiance prompts that ruin it and create some weird culture of irrelevant memes and spamming. I dont like it but I honestly can't hate it because it feels like the shitpost style youtube poops and flash cartoons had, maybe Im too old or maybe this gen sucks but I want less 2003 HONDA CIVIC or Chris screaming.
That said it wasnt just about seeing characters you know say silly out of character things, it was fascinating to see what these AI define as a coherent script and watch it play out. The inaccurate extrapolations the AI would make is also hilarious, such as every time Skinner in Unlimited Steam became a religious zealot and evoked god or satan because of the original lines "delightfully devilish" or "oh, ye gods!"
Its a case study but is also entertaining. Surley others here feel similarly?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Ok then list the top 50 bacterial infections you fricking dipshit
I don't mind any AI stuff that presents itself as explicitly being a novelty based around AI (rather than deceiving people) and if it calls attention to the faults of AI as an element of comedy, that's a cool bonus.
That said the infinitely generated YouTube channel stuff only lasts me about 30 minutes of background noise each before I'm bored with each one for good.
The reason why this stuff was entertaining is because it's so off the cuff, the fact that we know it's unscripted is what makes it funny, the fact that it's literally a machine scrambling sentences, it's like watching a dog hit buttons on a machine that says words and laughing at the funny outcomes
That style of comedy is inherently kill once the humor becomes scripted, because the sorts of things that are scripted are never funny in the same way as impromptu random statements, and vice versa
This, I agree
This too
AI has it's place, but everyone who posits it as 'the future of art' very clearly despises artists and art itself, they oftentimes make it very clear that they have some kinda qualms against artists because they can't be them
And sometimes they even downright hate beauty- And that, I think, is inherently evil
>everyone who posits it as 'the future of art' very clearly despises artists and art itself, they oftentimes make it very clear that they have some kinda qualms against artists because they can't be them
Thats a huge leap. I may notnbe majorly skilled as an artist but I can draw half decent on pencil and 3d modeling. I have a huge amout of respect for people who perfect their craft through traditional means. I also think the two could be blended together, taking an AI work and drawing over it or using AI to establish a concept that the artist will recreate.
The concepts don't have to be at odds but any political discussion in 2024 has to be polarized and created into a dichotomy.
>I have a huge amout of respect for people who perfect their craft through traditional means
>taking an AI work and drawing over it
yeah bro i have huge respect for chefs who practice and hone their craft, i think it'd be cool if they took microwave pizzas and sprinkled a bit of pepper on top
look, mate, AI is inherently anti-human, it's non human and should only be used in areas where humanity isn't needed like electronic work or concept proofing
leave art, the ultimate expression of humanity, to humanity
i dont mean to be a dismissive twat but every time I hear this and then i see this person draws furry breasts or porn, it's pavloved me into assuming that this person is mostly mad they cant eternally milk autists into porn commissions.
ah, yes, the eternal struggle
when the worst people say something right
Making the right point but reaching it from the wrong path of learning can be dangerous and give you the wrong takeaway.
You speak as if human expression is lkmited in medium or methodology. If we program the ai, tell it what to generate, and even define perameters or exceptions are we not directly influencing the generation?
Its like I can build a firework, choose the colors for it, ignite it and fire it, but even after all this the way the sparks spread and the rate it fizzles will be somewhat out of my control despite many many elements about this was defined by myself. Am I not responsible for the art that is that firework?
>If we program the ai
and there it is, the hurdle in play
the people who prompt don't program the ai
If we tell the ai what to generate and even define perameters or exceptions are we not directly influencing the generation?
if you tell an artist what to draw for you, did you 'influence' the piece? yes, but you're not the artist
Without changing the flow of data the AI is using, you're not controlling the creation, just guiding it to arrange its dataset to the right correlation of pixels that match the prompt you're asking for. Humans can be given (or forget) inspiration through existence and can change, and grow. Asking the same AI (without changing it's dataset) is just limiting the random augmentation of the data is already has available. You could have a non-advanced computer program randomly generate pixels, and given enough time, it would eventually create what you want over billions of years. The AI just limits the random nature, to some extent. The AI can never be beyond what it was programmed to be, unless you're controlling the dataset. And at that point, you're not training it as an artist, but as a image generator. And if its not your personal data being fed into the machine, you're just copying others, so you can't even claim its your art, because it's using other people's creation directly rather than being inspired by them to make something new (which the machine cannot do).
If you step in front of an automated door, do you say you opened it? Or do you say the door opened? If for whatever reason, when you walked in front of it, if it didn't open, would you respond 'The door didn't/won't open?' or 'I can't open the door?'
>If you step in front of an automated door, do you say you opened it? Or do you say the door opened? If for whatever reason, when you walked in front of it, if it didn't open, would you respond 'The door didn't/won't open?' or 'I can't open the door?'
Thats a rhetorical trick there. Yes, I would say I opened the door because I conciously triggered the mechanism to open it just as I would be triggering the mechanism of a traditional door by turning the knob. If I step on the panel to open the door but it doesn't open, I have operated it as intended, the machine is dysfunctional in the same way I can never complete a jigsaw puzzle if the connecting ends are ripped off
So if it works, you did it.
If it doesn't work, its a flaw of the machine and not your fault.
You're willing to take credit for the success and not the failure, despite the only part of the process being involved is your body triggering the sensor; something ANYONE (or even animals) can do.
Yet, would you call yourself a doorman? A door operator? No. Because you're not operating the door. It's just a machine reacting to the stimuli you provided. Just like using an AI to randomly generator something within a certain perimeter doesn't make you an artist. You didn't open the door, it opened for you, based on the machinations that were already in place before you even approached the building.
>machine has use
>I use it
I would say I am operating it, or am an operator, yes. If I as the operator did not commit a fault or flaw in my methodology, how is the door opening my fault? To be honest, if I said "oh thank you for getting the door for me" or if I said "oh, thank you for triggering the door so it opens for me" my sentiments would be the same, my feelings would be the same and I think going beyond that is pedantic.
Ultimatley none of that matters, right? I think instead of getting caught up in who we should thank if the door opens (the operator, the creator, or the electrical programming of the door) I try to focus on the end result.
Say I needed a jingle played on a guitar for a project. Lets also say I have no musical aptitude whatsoever, I know what the jingle sounds like as far as note progression and I know what a guitar sounds like. I honestly don't care where or how I get this from as long as I can suffer no legal culpability. To me I may not care if I hire a guitarist to play and record the jingle vs mapping the score to a guitar pro file, the end result is the same.
>oh, so you're admitting you value artificial and the true skills the same way?
No, I merley said as a buisnessman I saw both as viable answers to my goal and I chose the easiest. I dont believe I cannot have an appreciation for someone who plays guitar and has lesrned/practiced for years just because I myself wanted to take the easy road that has no gurantee to matter how much it impacts my project one over the other.
>AI is inherently anti-human
AI does not generate images by itself. It takes a prompt written by a human.
why lie like this?
That's like saying every idea has value because it exists.
>Tell advanced AI to make Super Hero Show as prompt
>Renders the Best Super Hero Show Ever
>"I made this show, so I get all the credit for all the effort and ideas it put into it, because it was MY idea!"
You're like the guys that send their unsolicited OC 'Mole Man' to DC and then six years later when 'Snoot: The Mole Digger" appears you think they stole your idea. Just because the light bulb goes off in your head doesn't mean you should be rewarded.
NTA but yeah dim views on IP in general and the concept of owning an idea. Like even in a commie or capitalist setting the idea of intellectual squatting. the idea you can own something and like not let anybody else use it. like its fricking moronic, if somebody could do it better than you it should be allowed to have somebody make it better than you. why are people allowed to take something and keep it for a lifetime when there might be somebody out there who could do it infinitely better, i think of all the cancelled fan remakes of abandoned games or the fan animations and comics that can be struck down because somebody had the idea first so you aren't ever allowed to use it before US. It's hording, information should be exchanged and given, characters should be fluid and adaptable by anybody but like they just arent because you have somebody who refuses to let others have a good idea so they have to come up with a good idea knockoff.
It be like if somebody made a better version of the light bulb but a light bulb company refuses to let anybody make light bulb 2 because they used their design but made it far more functional and practical but it doesnt matter because somebody did it first. its that kinda logic that frustrates me.
I feel like nobody would even care that much about AI if it wasn't for the small loud contingent that treats it as tantamount to actual hand-made art and simultaneously seems to despise actual artists for some reason. If people just treated it as a stupid goofy thing like those AI shows nobody'd give a shit.
Ai unironically is the future, Rallys/Checkers uses an AI bot to talk to you in drive thru and they do a damn better job than the wagies working there.
Everything that has advanced civilization recieves the same complaint of "youre ruining what it is by subtracting the human element from it!"
>calculators
>tablet drawing
>digital photography and photo editing
I think its ok for people to be worried about ai being used too much but the push on all ai being soulless and.straling people's jobs are missing the bigger picture here.
So your idea was to prove
right immediately?
Honestly I don't hear about most of these weird takes on AI unless someone brings it from twitter to here.
The whole art thing has unironically poisoned the well for public discussion about AI. It's going to be far, far more impactful for things like research and document recording because of its ability to solve sorting problems, but nobody focuses on that because nobody wants to look at AI do the work of 10,000 bureaucrats in a few hours when they could look at AI make a slightly wonky png of an anime girl in a forest. The people spewing vitriol at artists is just the icing on the cake, you can't talk about AI's actual practical applications now without it spiraling into discussions about this shit. This is something that could start solving long-reaching issues about cancer and nanotechnology and the discourse is all around fricking artists.
The good news is that it's still being used in those ways and more. It's just going to always be a contentious topic in various fields.
True but even if the public is moronic the research in those areas is still progressing. It's not like the public discourse detracts from that research, it just makes it frustrating to try and talk about AI in public spaces.
Also too it could be a matter of clogging the buisness for the sake of not changing the system.
>if you do self checkouts youll only need 2-3 supervisors vs the 10 employees that would be running manned registers
Someone could be running s contract to keep the current system as is until the contract expires or the management changes
>Could reduce the number of government bureaucrats so that government waste is significantly reduced
>Could be used to generate optimal traffic light placement and timing
>Could be used to make optimal road paths and lane sizes
>Could be used to model optimal designs for engines and vehicles
>Could be used to solve physics and math issues that have plagued humanity for centuries
>Could be used to work out maximally efficient microscopic motors for nanomachines
>Could be used to identify all manner of new treatments for diseases like cancer and ebola
>Could be used to reduce administrative overhead across the board
>Could be used to help perfect surgical techniques and even guide surgeries in the future without risking human error
>Tons of active research is going into this because that's obviously the most profound way AI could impact our lives
>ART FLASHY ANIME TIDDY LOOK GUD AI IS STEALING NOT REAL ART HURRRRRRR
I fricking hate people.
Easily my favorite AI stream. Shame all it takes is one slip up and the whole thing is taken down.
You're a moron
Im moronic for schadenfreuding computers fail the turing test?