rand_alpha19

The problem comes when producing work. A generative model will only produce things that are essentially interpolations of artworks it has trained on. A human artist interpolates between artworks they have seen from other artists, as well as their own lived experiences, and extrapolate [...].

Yes, but how does that negate its usefulness as a tool or a foundation to start from? I never made any assertion that AI is able to make connections or possess any sort of creativity.

Herein lies the argument that generative AI in its current state doesn't produce anything novel and just regurgitates what it has seen.

There's a common saying that there is no such thing as an original story, because all fiction builds on other fiction. Can you see how that would apply here? Just because thing A and thing B exist doesn't mean that thing C cannot possibly be interesting or substantially different. The brainstorming potential of an AI with a significant dataset seems functionally identical to an artist searching for references on Google (or Pixiv).

Having someone copy your voice to make it say things you did not say is something many will be very uncomfortable with.

So is this your main issue? I'm just not sure that that is really a valid reason, since many people are very uncomfortable with like, organ donation, pig heart valves, animal agriculture, ghostwriters, real person fanfiction, or data collection by Google. I'm sure there is something in the world that most people see as either positive or neutral that makes you very uncomfortable. For me, it's policing.

On the economic front, I agree - these companies should have been licensing these images from the start and we should be striving to create some sort of open database for artists so that they are compensated. It's possible that awarding royalties, while flawed, may be a good framework since they could potentially be paid for all derivative works and not simply the image itself. But that may be prohibitively expensive due to the sheer number of iterations being performed, so it's hard to say.

It's not theft, the artist still has their work. If anything, it's copyright infringement. When some 16-year-old aspiring artist uses another artists' work as a reference or traces something, what's that?

I guess you could call it practice, but then doesn't AI do the same thing by iterating based on its dataset? Some AI outputs look terrifying and janky - so did my art when I was younger.

I dunno, like this issue isn't as simple as I used to think it was. If we look outside of economics (because artists need money to survive, like all of us) is there actually a problem here?

I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about all of this, but it's pretty obvious AI isn't just gonna go away like NFTs did. I really am interested in discussion, I'm not trolling.

So like, I guess I'm just wondering how that refutes his point that it's a tool for artists then.

I personally am aware of people who run local LLMs trained on their own art so they don't have to spend as much time sketching or doing linework.

Maybe you're just not as open-minded about this as you could be? It's being used in sketchy ways by a lot of people, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a place, especially at the idea stage.

He argued that it's just the same when an artist draws inspiration from other peoples' art and creates their own - which is just plain false.

Hey, can you articulate the difference though? Stating this as a plain fact seems kinda like you're constructing reality to fit your opinion and maybe that's what your friend is pushing back on.

It's true that AI is often trained on copyrighted images, but artists use copyrighted images as references all the time. I know AI can't be literally "inspired," or have artistic intentions, but like, what actually is the difference? Other than philosophical differences that involve like, the inability to emulate actual creativity.

Seems like AI is just faster, because it's a computer that can do tons of adjustments instantly instead of iterating over time like a human. Anyway, just food for thought. I don't think AI is going to replace artists entirely but a lot of companies are definitely going to try to see how far they can take it.

That's cool and all, but they have access to cutting edge treatments for any ailments resulting from this while the vast majority of everyone else on the planet does not despite contributing heavily to the issue.

Hopefully she's been going outside and airing out her mold brain.

My time to shine! My wife is notoriously picky about games. You didn't specify local or online co-op but most of these have local if not online since we prefer to only need one copy.

• Apico
• Death Road to Canada
• Door Kickers: Action Squad
• Dysmantle
• Lego Harry Potter Years 1-4 (some of the Lego games around this time are also fun)
• Mother Russia Bleeds
• Nine Parchments
• Party Hard
• Riptide GP: Renegade
• Road Redemption
• Slipstream
• Super Mega Baseball (any of them)
• Textorcist: The Story of Ray Bibbia (I use the keyboard to type, she moves the character around with her controller)
• Traveller's Rest
• Trine
• Unravel 1 & 2
• Vampire Survivors
• Wizard of Legend

Look, there's a reason why people who use wheelchairs aren't running track events. Disability is a spectrum, but let's not pretend that it doesn't actually prevent people from doing things.

For reference:

• Jus sanguinis: citizenship based on parentage
• Jus soli: citizenship based on location

If Debian is good enough for Hide the Pain Harold, it's good enough for me.

Probably yt-dlp, it's a pretty popular and relatively simple terminal application.

• Reviews
• Trailers
• Reactions
• Travel vlogs
• Beginner tutorials

To some extent, these types of videos advertise or promote a product, service, or experience.