I’m fascinated by the range of discussion here, thanks to everyone for weighing in. Im particularly bemused by the discusssion of whether the subject even classifies as “art” which was not really the purpose of my question. I never questioned that it can still be called “art”, even if I don’t like it. However, a lot of commenters here seem to accuse the whole AI Art explosion as a charade; devoid of being in the conversation at all. Lot’s to think about going forward. I still think it counts as art though…
Thank you for raising this interesting topic. It is nice to discuss this matter together - even if our insights will have no influence at all on future developments. It is certainly a complex issue. If only because AI is not just image generation, or text generation. Not that I want to start a fundamental discussion here, but I think that one way or another this technology is in the world. So Pandora’s box has already been opened; there will be no turning back. I think the most sensible thing Lemmy can do is find a workable way to deal with all the consequences. This is extremely difficult, as evidenced by the fact that even a multi-billion corporation like Google doesn’t have the right answers (because of Google’s business model, this company has to be interested in making its search results as useful as possible, because only market leadership promises the highest profits - and that’s only possible if the usebility is somewhat right). Back on topic: I don’t think that all the things that someone does with an AI image generator can pass as art at all, simply because a lot of it is nothing more than an attempt to create low-efford and therefore cost-effective reach. I hope and am reasonably convinced that this model won’t work because it’s completely transparent - little amount of time invested still results in poor quality content (or even just staight up plagiarism). On the other hand, I have the impression that many Lemmy users (and not only them) have a completely wrong impression: It is simply not possible to generate high-quality content within a few minutes using generative AI - well, it is but the result would just be plagiarism in most cases. These attempts are quite rightly rejected here. On the other hand, it is quite possible to create high-quality content with AI support that cannot even be recognized as such (and is not a plagiat in any known sence). However, this is not done in a matter of a few minutes, but requires considerable effort. Certainly less than designing/writing/whatever yourself from scratch; but still far more effort than copy/paste or the usual low-effort shitpost. So overall, I think the question should be less about whether content is AI-generated or not. The question should rather be whether it’s good/helpful/informative/funny/… content or not - if it is, you won’t recognize that AI is in play anyway. I think everyone should be aware of that. Not because I think this is in any way fair or desirable, but because I think generative-AI-created or supportet content will dominate the internet in the future. I think the key question is how to make it at least somewhat fair for all those not compensated till day.
I remember when Jarritos was this exotic little mandarin drink, only stocked in one row at my local super market. I’ve loved them since then, and now I see them everywhere in all flavors. Like watching a child grow up :')
The prices for coke and pepsi products has gone up an absurd amount the last few years. Unless they drop back down a bit in price (unlikely) I’m sticking to my sodastream for all my home carbonation needs.
I posted a (labeled) AI-generated piece of art to a Star Trek shitposting community and a mod removed it because they didn’t want AI generated images, even if labeled.
It didn’t make me mad at all, I just found it interesting and kind of ironic
Seriously, I feel like the only artists that have to worry about AI are the incompetent ones. Are you really that scared about something that lacks originality by nature? If so, you’re probably just doing soul-sucking grunt work…
I would argue that of the three items you listed (bananas, coffee, chocolate) that the main reason those items are “cheap” is exploitation of the workers and economies of the global south.
This is just one popular science article on the topic, and it just brushes the surface of how colonial politics have stripped the global south of resources while simultaneously building capital in the global north.
Enslaving and killing ethnic groups en masse, creating a surveillance police state, imprisoning people for criticizing the government, making their people work in sweat shops to rule and manipulate global manufacturing, collecting personal information on every person on earth, militarily and financially supporting the worst despots on the planet?
And that’s exactly what China does? They don’t do unilateral trade agreements. They don’t impose their policies on countries they make deals with. They are equal partners. Which is why most countries in Africa prefer China as a partner than the US or EU nowadays…
“This Jacobo, he’s making us pay minimum wages!.. and that’s not all, he’s taking our unused land and giving it back to the people! Does that sound familiar?”
Can someone explain to me what the difference is between AI art and students imitating an artist? What happens when the AI actually gains the ability to experiment “outside the box” - what we call creativity?
Can someone explain to me what the difference is between AI art and students imitating an artist?
Students are people who cannot truly copy art even if they wanted to. Pius, everyone generally does art their own way because… that is the point of art.
Image generation models just copy patterns from existing images, there is no process of artistic creation, nothing to interpret, no process… AI generated images are just pretty noise.
What happens when the AI actually gains the ability to experiment “outside the box” - what we call creativity?
It cannot do that just by design. It’s not a thinking thing, calling these models AI is really a misnomer and more of a marketing thing than a description of what it really is.
Image generation models just copy patterns from existing images, there is no process of artistic creation, nothing to interpret, no process… AI generated images are just pretty noise
Unlike the creativity that is on display by humans. Which is why every adult cartoon looks nothing like Family Guy.
When we go back in time, we worry about changing the past. But we expect this person from the future to tell us all the stuff so we can fuck around with (for them) things that already happened.
No. An old colleague of mine is on LinkedIn non-stop posting crazy QAnon shit and RT headlines. Anti-vax more-or-less started in the UK with the Andrew Wakefield affair and it seems to be super-popular in Australia too. Conspiracy Theory kind of helps people rationalise the absolute chaotic mess of the world we live in by reducing it to simple narratives where a defined enemy is out to get us.
It’s easier to think everyone is out to get you. Than that you are just an insignificant self sabotaging fuck up. Not even on the radar of the elder gods
Once your basic needs are met, the equation becomes: Salary = Expenses + Savings. So, the questions becomes, how much savings makes you happy?
If you are happy to work in your job until “retirement age”, a small savings rate will do, in theory; that is if the salary is adjusted for cost-of-living and tax.
Are you happy working this job for the rest of your life? Full time (whatever that means in your work culture)?
Yes, I’m lucky enough to have a good salary, but I can tell people there is no top limit. Once you have your needs met then you’re exactly right, it’s about retirement planning and savings, and there could always be more. The fact is that the only true money amount that will make someone happy is the amount that allows them not to work anymore
This one is easy. I would simply do what they tell me to do. After all, since they came back to see me, it’s certainly because the future me sent them back in time.
If it wasn’t me that sent them back in time, then it’s probably a set up, and I would be powerless to resist it.
If they insisted on my ordering them around, I’d have them bring back a copy of their Wikipedia from 50 years in the future, and then I’d try to use the rest of the time to figure out the physics behind time travel, and see if I can’t get plans for a time machine.
There are few theoretically possible technologies as overwhelmingly powerful as time machines. Even an extraordinarily weak time machine, for example, one that could only move you a few minutes back and forth, would be enough to make me insanely wealthy, assuming that it wasn’t cost prohibitive to run.
That is the book that is very critical and severe toward the United States. I think the problem is that that book was written as a counterpoint to the history of the United States we learn in secondary school. If you haven’t learned U.S. history from a U.S. high school history textbook, it is going to feel unbalanced, prejudiced, because you are not the target audience, who has grown up with an uncritical, unbalanced, prejudiced but in the other way, curriculum. I would imagine a book by a European scholar of U.S. history would have more potential to give a neutral outside but critical point of view.
I have been to Mauthausen concentration camp.
Harrowing expereince, especially when you are walking through one of the buildings with lots of artifacts in glass cases and information on plaques and go through a doorway and suddenly your in a room with floor to ceiling tiles and shower heads…
Can imagine. Visited the Yad Vashem holocaust museum in Jerusalem and the holocaust museum in Berlin. Both were awesome and brutal experiences. Well worth a visit.
asklemmy
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.