• Replies 4 replies
  • Subscribers 29 subscribers
  • Views 41 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

Regarding AI images/videos...

Jamesmac

Anyone else get the vibe that anything visual generated by AI feels like nothing in it is done deliberately?

Like, it just has the feeling of some thing copying something it's already seen before based on a prompt it's given, but at the same time having no idea why what it's copying is the way it is or why it's doing it in the first place.

Like, when you draw something yourself, a person. You want them to look angry. You know why they are angry. You come up with a reason why they're angry. And that comes across in the work.

Meanwhile, with AI, it's like, the drawing of the person is angry, but the AI doesn't know why they're angry, doesn't seem to have any concept as to what constitutes to anger other than the physical expressions, and doesn't even know why the physical expressions are done that way, and that definitely comes across in it's "work"

Does anyone else kinds notice this or feel the same way?

Parents
  • Jamesmac said:
    Like, it just has the feeling of some thing copying something it's already seen before based on a prompt it's given, but at the same time having no idea why what it's copying is the way it is or why it's doing it in the first place.

    I've not seen much AI 'art' (not really art of course) but the above is exactly what it is.

    Photographers, artists, writers etc are having their work stolen to train AI - I know that some photographers have been compensated in very small amounts.

    If you look at photo microstock agencies now (like Adobe Stock) and do a search on a keyword AI images tend to come up first.  You have to filter to remove them.  They are promoting the AI images which are based on the hard work of photographers.

    Jamesmac said:
    but the AI doesn't know why they're angry, doesn't seem to have any concept as to what constitutes to anger other than the physical expressions

    Yes because it's not human.

    It's machine learning and nothing more - no  heart or soul.

Reply
  • Jamesmac said:
    Like, it just has the feeling of some thing copying something it's already seen before based on a prompt it's given, but at the same time having no idea why what it's copying is the way it is or why it's doing it in the first place.

    I've not seen much AI 'art' (not really art of course) but the above is exactly what it is.

    Photographers, artists, writers etc are having their work stolen to train AI - I know that some photographers have been compensated in very small amounts.

    If you look at photo microstock agencies now (like Adobe Stock) and do a search on a keyword AI images tend to come up first.  You have to filter to remove them.  They are promoting the AI images which are based on the hard work of photographers.

    Jamesmac said:
    but the AI doesn't know why they're angry, doesn't seem to have any concept as to what constitutes to anger other than the physical expressions

    Yes because it's not human.

    It's machine learning and nothing more - no  heart or soul.

Children