bunnyfc

deepblueseas, 2 months ago

I appreciate that you taken time to explain the technical aspects into what generative AI is processing under the hood, but the reality is that no amount of programming will ever be able to recreate the uniqueness and infinite variability of human creativity, emotion, imagination or consciousness. There is an immeasurable difference between true creativity and producing variations on a data set. I say this as both an artist and a programmer. I’m not just talking out of my ass.

I agree with you that a goal of art is to express ideas and that there’s are a lot of people in the art world that fetishize art in to being something more important than it is in certain contexts, but art is also a core component and something unique to humanity(and sometimes even to other species.) In that way, it’s something to be cherish and regarded - and throughout history it has been extremely culturally significant. Trying to translate these concepts into an algorithm, in my mind, nothing but an extremely arrogant waste of effort and time. Why not spend your time automating the boring shit no one wants to do rather than the creative things people actually enjoy doing?

I am not gatekeeping. I am just stating simple facts. I find it offensive and demeaning that you are devaluing the immense amount of effort that artists undergo to hone their crafts and produce art. You’re damn right it’s work - if you want to get proficient at something, that’s what it takes. I don’t care how boomer-ey that sounds. Yes, some artists have natural talent and don’t need as much effort as others. But, nonetheless, effort is required to create. Anyone can create art, not just some elite select few. But, not everyone can create art that is universally recognized as great or masterful, and it’s not a problem that need to be solved by technology. Unfortunately, art is subjective, so not everything one creates is perceived the same. That’s why some are more successful than others. You may argue that AI levels the playing field, but the fact is that it leverages the work of “successful” artists or artworks, and generates results that are perceived as successful or appealing as a result. It’s a shortcut. You are bypassing the effort otherwise needed by using a tool, which allows most users to to be totally ignorant of the basic knowledge required to create an art work - shape language, color theory, composition, lighting, appeal, posing, etc.

Entering a prompt into an AI model is akin to directing, producing or acting as a muse. It’s a very similar argument as to the validity or artistic merits of factory artists like Andy Warhol or Jeff Koons - While you are responsible for the idea that produces a result, you are still relying on the work and effort of not only the numerous team of people creating the AI model and its algorithms , but also the immeasurable amount of man-hours and creativity involved in creating the source content for the model training materials.

It’s one thing to use generative AI as tool, with intent to make use of the output as reference for your own work in a larger context. But to take the direct output and call it art is morally and ethically wrong. In my eyes, it makes you look like a total hack who doesn’t want to put the effort in to make things for themselves…no matter how much time you put into coming up with the prompt for the output.

I still stand by my original arguments - coming up with a prompt or a training data set to create an image is not art, because you are not actively involved with the creation of the imagery, itself. What an AI model generates is not a creative work and it is not your creation. If that is offensive to you, there’s nothing I can do about that, because it’s apparent that your arguments only serve to make yourself feel better about using generative AI.

It’s also apparent that you have an extremely skewed view of what art is and what it means to be an artist. Art, at its base level is about expressing HUMAN creativity, not what an algorithm interprets it to be. It’s about making countless, specific choices for each step of the creative process and having complete control of the final outcome. It’s those choices that make your art truly unique and an expression of your creative vision. It doesn’t matter if it is objectively bad or good, just that it came from you, and that every detail, every color, every line, was your choice, not an interpretation of your words.

Unless you are creating your own AI model from scratch and training it purely on your own artworks, I don’t see how you can, in good conscience, claim the results to be your own.

Any one can create art, but an artist is someone who dedicates themselves to their craft, as with any other craftsman. That passion is what separates an artisan from a hobbyist. You may view this as snobbery, but I view it as respect and honoring a tradition that spans all of human kind, back to the earliest cave paintings tens of thousands of years ago. I know my limits and what I’m capable of and I have come to terms with those deficiencies in my work. I’m not delusional enough to think that by generating an image through AI, it somehow makes up for those shortcomings and makes me into something I am not.

Dave, 4 months ago

I mean, there was all that drama where the board formed to prevent this from happening kicked out the CEO trying to do this stuff, then the board got booted out and replaced with a new board and brought back that CEO guy. So this was pretty much going to happen.

hoshikarakitaridia, 4 months ago

And some people pointed it out even back then. There were signs that the employees were very loyal to Altmann, but Altmann didn’t meet the security concerns of the board. So stuff like this was just a matter of time.

dr_scientist, 4 months ago

Dear Nitwit,

A reduced faith in science might, hear me out here, ••might•• have something to do with science, ya know, killing the planet and what not. You wanna get some faith back? Maybe apply these new technologies to human happiness, or even, who knows human survival.

One more thing, nimrod. The real risk averse culture? It ain’t your unwashed “zero-sum thinking Millennials” No, it’s your hyper capitalist who’s rigged the system to the point where taking financial risk is erased by government bailouts. They’re the ones who want to eliminate risk.

And it’s that, plus their increased control of what is and is not researched in practised science that leads to our dismay. See above: “planet dying” Imagine something like pencillin, developed entirely within an academic risky environment, getting made today.

There’s risk in true critical thinking, instead of lazy “Kids Today” hand-wringing. So, in future, take a fucking risk.

chemicalwonka, 4 months ago

In fact, I was always the biggest alcoholic in my family, addicted to Jägermeister but I had to choose between continuing to drink and dying or stopping. Well, I’m here now writing this post

rockSlayer, 5 months ago (edited 5 months ago)

I genuinely don’t understand your distain for using base 2 on something that caculates in base 2. Do you know how counting works in binary? Every byte is made up of 8 bits, and goes from 0000 0000 to 1111 1111, or 0-15. When converted to larger scales, 1024 bytes is a clean mathematical derivation in base 2, 1000 is a fractional number. Your pendantry seems to hinge on the use of the prefix right? I think 1024 is a better representation of kilo- in base 2, because a kilo- can be directly translated up to exabytes and down to nybbles while “1000” in base 2 is extremely difficult. The point of metric is specifically to facilitate easy measuring, right? So measuring in the units that the computer uses makes perfect sense. It’s like me saying that a kilogram should be measured in base 60, because that was the original number system.

huginn, 5 months ago

Friendly reminder that your predictive text, while very compelling, is not alive.

It’s not a mind.

barsoap, 5 months ago

That’s not how billing works on the internet: You hook up to an IXP for a flat rate depending on the port bandwidth you want, then make peering agreements with other people there. If traffic levels are about even, say, a regional ISP with a neigbouring regional ISP, they will just deal with traffic directed at each other for free.

But that only connects you to the next ISP, not to the whole internet, to get at the whole internet you peer with a tier-1 provider, people who run connections to IXPs all over the world so you can reach all. They’re going to want money for that, and they’re going to bill by maximum upstream bandwidth you sent out to the internet you used in that month^1^.

If you’re an ISP that’s generally fine, you’re getting money from your customers, if you’re a company with a webserver that’s also fine, bandwidth isn’t that expensive. If you’re someone who puts petabytes on the pipes though, that includes the likes of netflix, you want to do something different: You want a box at every IXP that caches content so you can peer with those regional ISPs directly. That’s also generally for free because while you’re sending a lot of data, hooking up directly to you means that the ISP won’t have to pay their tier-1 provider for the upstream part of the connection (there’s always ack packages etc) and it’s not like the total amount of traffic they’re dealing with increases, it only shifts. Historically that has been akamai, the original peering slut (peers with everyone as long as they’re sober), now there’s a gazillion of CDNs and content providers like netflix which run their own CDNs.

The only ones complaining about that are tier1 providers which are also ISPs because they’d rather have all those CDNs pay them for using their fibre than not use their fibre and make things more efficient. They’re rent seeking. And ISPs who want to triple-dip and have you pay by volume, which noone on the internet pays for.

Oh: What you pay your ISP for is a line and share of a port to the IXP, its maintenance, and your share in what they’re shelling out to their tier-1 provider(s) for the stuff you upload into the wider net. Which is btw why asymmetric connections (higher download than upload bandwidth) make sense even if the underlying connection is symmetric: Provided the ISP’s infrastructure is fast enough receiving more packets over their line only costs electricity, and a negligible amount thereof.

---

^1^ It’s not “maximum” but “modulo 1% spike or something” don’t ask me about the exact maths

thefluffiest, 5 months ago

Spez has that empty stare of a person who knows the devil is about to collect

LetterboxPancake, 6 months ago

Die FDP muss alle paar Jahre in die Regierung kommen um klarzumachen dass sie in der Regierung nichts zu suchen hat. Das ist ein Zyklus der von vielen missverstanden wird.

WaxedWookie, 6 months ago

Thousands of children and innocent civilians are killed by a fascist, genocidal government, and a jihadi group.

Won’t someone think of the shareholders

dustyData, 6 months ago

That is categorically not how it works. We had trials over this after WWII. The international law was delineated quite clearly. Intentionally targeting civilians to hit military targets is still a war crime. Even if enemy combatants are hiding among civilians to use them as human shields, even if you can prove that it is a standard practice of your enemy. It’s still a war crime. Israel is just so confident that the US will back them up all the way down to total genocide that they don’t even pretend they are trying to follow IHL anymore.

Mrkawfee, 7 months ago

If we accept Israel’s argument that it can kill whoever it wants because the other side started it then we are creating a new basis for conflict where wars can always be justified by the instigator.

Norgur, 7 months ago

Weil man ja scheinbar seine Positionen jetzt immer haarklein aufdröseln muss, um nicht per Rundumschlag in irgend einer Schublade zu landen, weil man zufällig ein Argument für richtig hält, das diese Schublade auch verwendet, hier meine:

• Die Massaker der Hamas sind widerlich

• Kein Mensch kann eine Organisation wie die Hamas unterstützen

• Man muss sonst nicht viel zur Hamas sagen, weil es keiner Argumentation bedarf, um darzulegen, dass wir es hier mit Individuen zu tun haben, deren Ableben die Welt nur verbessern würde

• Palästinenser sind Menschen und sie mit der Hamas zu vermischen ist zu einfach (analog der Frage "Wer war hier wirklich Verbrecher" nach dem Fall der Nazis)

• Dass Israel sich wundert, dass Terrororganisationen aus Ghettos hervorgehen, in die man Menschen mit dem Ziel der Unterdrückung sperrt, nur um sie in Abhängigkeit und Armut zu halten und dann immer mal wieder zu bombardieren, ist Heuchlerei. Sie haben die Terroristen nicht selbst an die Macht gebracht, sie haben aber weiß Gott genug dafür getan.

• Strom, Wasser, Lebensmittel, Medikamente abstellen für millionen von Menschen ist ein Verbrechen und absolut nicht zu rechtfertigen

• Zivilisten bombardieren weil "da sind ja Hamas-Leute drunter" geht ebenfalls nicht

So, jetzt zum eigentlichen Text:

Mich hat insgesamt die völlig unreflektierte Vermischung von Antisemitismus und dem Staat Israel auf der einen und Hamas und dem Gazastreifen sehr irritiert und die selbstverständlichkeit mit der wir "gerade als Deutsche" zu Israel zu stehen haben. Gerade die Einlagen der Heute Show und von extra3 haben mich da echt verwirrt.

Wenn ich Kriegshandlungen gegen Zivilisten (z.B. das Abstellen von Wasser oder Strom) verurteile, dann hat das doch verdammt nochmal nix mit der Religion der Täter zu tun. Wenn der Kerl, der das anordnet zufällig der einzige Christ in der ganzen Regierung von Israel wäre, wäre meine Kritik noch exakt die selbe. Antisemitismus wird von Israel selbst international gerne als Opferrollen-Methode verwendet ("Wenn du meinen Handelsdeal nicht abschließt, bist du ein Antisemit") und jetzt im Moment, um einer Pro-Israel-Haltung Schlagkraft zu verleihen. Das ist nicht in Ordnung. Israel hat in vielen moralischen Fragen viel zu lange international einen Freifahrtschein bekommen, weil "Antisemitismus". Egal, wie religiös der Staat Israel sein mag, seine Handlungen sind nicht die Handlungen des Judentums.

Diese "gerade als Deutsche"-Haltung ist ebenfalls fehlerhaft. Gerade als Deutsche sollten wir
a) sehen, dass der Gazastreifen auffällig nach einem Ghetto aussieht
b) anerkennen, wie leicht man staatliche Unterdrückung ganzer Bevölkerugnsgruppen als "och, soooo schlimm ist es doch gar nicht" tarnen kann
c) darauf aufmerksam machen, wenn ein Staat auch nur im Ansatz in die selben Methoden abdriftet, die die Nazis so grauenvoll erfolgreich gegen so viele unschuldige verwendet haben
d) Für die Nachfahren und Opfer des Holocaust den "Safe Space" in Form ihres eigenen Staates schützen und verteidigen helfen

Vor diesem Hintergrund finde ich es sehr falsch, eine bedingungslose "Pro Israel" Haltung selbstverständlich als einzig richtige zu propagieren, immer mit der Illusion von nur zwei "Parteien" verbunden: Wer nicht "Pro Israel" ist, ist Antisemit, und "Pro Hamas". Ich denke, der Großteil der Menschen ist aber eigentlich schlicht "Contra fucking Kriegsverbrechen" und damit weder "Pro Israel" noch "Pro Hamas". Diese beiden Parteien bauen gerade mächtig Scheiße. Ich bin für die Menschen, die da leben, und einfach leben wollen. Und ich bin dafür, dass diese Menschen keiner umbringt.

FoundTheVegan, 7 months ago (edited 7 months ago)

I remember someone here chiding others for critizing Cruise. They were talking up the "fact" that the car stopped and let emergency services dictate what to do instead of risk harming her further. It was GOOD that the car stopped on her.

No matter what happens, anything or anywhere. There will always be people defending it. I wonder if that person is glad to hear the car heroically dragged her out of traffic?

Buals, 7 months ago

Scoots McGoots