Regarding AI images/videos...

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.

I was pleased when this happened:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/18/authors-dumped-from-new-zealands-top-book-prize-after-ai-used-in-cover-designs

I can understand why the authors were definitely not pleased. According to the article, the competition altered its rules to exclude AI when it was already too late for publishers to do anything about it. Granted the covers in question were garbage, but this was a book competition and you shouldn't judge a book by its cover.

I can understand why the authors were definitely not pleased. According to the article, the competition altered its rules to exclude AI when it was already too late for publishers to do anything about it. Granted the covers in question were garbage, but this was a book competition and you shouldn't judge a book by its cover.