Ser Scot A Ellison

12 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Not enough apparently, when he's taking more votes from Trump than Biden.

I certainly hope so.

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

As of now, the only other two confirmed are Utah and Hawaii (there was just a ruling in his favor on the latter).  Here’s a good rundown of his camp’s reported efforts:

 

How much is the Trump campaign paying this asshat to be a spoiler?

4 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Trump campaign/defense fundraiser?

No. It’s coming at them through a dating app.  They are convinced it is real despite all evidence to the contrary.  Can a human have real love for a bot?  Can that love be real the way people defending AI “art” claim AI output can be “art”?

4 hours ago, Luzifer's right hand said:

At least you can't fall in love with something only to discover that the creator is a horrible person later. 

That's the one advantage of AI created content I see.

Tell that to my elderly relative who has fallen in love with a bot designed to ask for money after softing them up with complements.  They refuse to give money and to believe the bot is a bot…

7 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Aye. But only C-suite for now. I am actively looking to fill two positions. COO and CFO. I have just engaged the services of a Colorado-based recruitment firm I met at Spannabis.

 

 

What you really need to do is to pay a collections attorney in South Carolina really well to argue on line and play a chess app all day… it’ll pay off down the line.

5 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Well, I disagree completely. But then again, it's probably fair to say I'm biased to some extent.

Personally, without the assistance of ChatGPT, my invention would probably be stuck in my living room forever. It has literally changed my life. I have used this tool to help turn my idea into a company potentially worth hundreds of millions of pounds. 

And directly because of assistance rendered by ChatGPT, I could be on the verge of doing something really good in the field of sustainable agriculture and crop security.

And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

People just have to accept that, as with most technological advances, some industries are going to be negatively affected. That's life. That's the way it's always been. And the way it always will be.

In all sincerity… congratulations!

5 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I think it's fair to say that in most cases of art there is a process of give and take between artist and audience. The artist either does it for self-expression, to meet the specifications of a patron, some more high-minded or abstract reason, or some combination. The audience gets some sort of emotional response, some changed aesthetic or philosophical understanding, or some combination. 

It's just that AI disrupts the normal process. It creates art to meet the specifications of the audience, and it can elicit emotions (and possibly even a changed philosophical understanding). But the reasons for creation are no longer part of the equation. Or are at least obscure to us sentient meat robots.

Well stated.

7 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

So you're denying my experience as a consumer of art. You are saying that all the emotions I feel looking at these images are worthless because a computer made them. Honestly, you can just feck right off with that superior art-snob attitude.

I’m saying three things… I support living artists and their work.  I oppose stealing from them via LLMs.  I don’t believe LLMs create anything but output.

Disagree all you like.

9 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Guess what, Scot. I might be an uneducated oik, but one thing I do know for a fact. Neither you, nor anybody else, gets to say that is and isn't art.

You might think you do, up there in your thatched Ivory Tower with your wax tablets and phonograms and 20-inch TV. But nobody making this stuff cares what you think.

 

 

Ok

@Spockydog

My take is that the person seeking to create art needs to at least be sentient.  Art created by an LLM isn’t being created by anything with sentience… as such… it isn’t art.

Just now, Werthead said:

Yartsevo Oil Terminal burning merrily away after an overnight drone strike, along with the oil depot in Talashkino. 

The US has already sent 190-mile ATACMs to Ukraine, and they have already been used.

Time for the Crimean bridge to really come down?

Just now, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I am a researcher and I have no problem using layman's definitions of words in casual speech. Just as I don't correct every person who fails to recognize peppers and eggplants as "fruits."

Understood.  It is a pet peeve of mine.  Sorry.

4 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Again, in theory.

Hypothetically… a theory is something else.  I hate that particular use of “in theory” because it undermines what “theory” actually is…

This is my honest view of Generative AI “Art”:

I’m going to say until computers have sentience and an ability to be moved by beauty, crushed by despair, frustrated with ennui, they will not be able to create “art”.  Art is intrinsically tied to the emotion that is a necessary part of human existence.

Computers cannot make “art” until they can be moved by their brain’s  own existence to create “art”.  

Do you see what I’m driving at?  

Even if Computers could “feel” their art should be incompressible to us because our existences are so very different from our silicone children’s existence.

Just now, Spockydog said:

What, you mean like they already do when filling up scenes with CG crowds and shit? 

Instead of hiring actors for “background” yes.

Just now, Spockydog said:

An actors face and voice is a unique thing. 

An artistic style is not. Nobody owns Art Deco or Impressionism. 

See my edit.

2 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

No. That is completely different. 

 

How is it “completely different”? 

Would you support film studios using GAI to create “generative actors” who never existed in real life instead of hiring background actors?

Just now, Spockydog said:

Do me a favour. Pop over to Dalle and knock me up some concept art of the Lazyscrog deployed inside a greenhouse on the surface of Mars. 

I don’t claim to be an artist.  

2 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Get over it. The world has changed. 

Did you support the Film industry sampling actors once and then using that actors image without further compensation?

Just now, Spockydog said:

Get over it. The world has changed. 

No.

3 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Scot, have you ever tried to get a bespoke image, for something specific that doesn't yet exist, out of an AI?

I've tried, several times, to save myself a couple of grand by generating some concept art for my business. It was impossible, and I am pretty creative. I got nothing worthwile and in the end sprung for the £1500 to get it done professionally, by a human. 

Don’t care.  I support flesh and blood artists and writers who are having their work sampled and copied while those using generative AI claim they are artists and writers too.

They are not.

Just now, polishgenius said:

It's fucking theft is what it is. 

Yes.

1 minute ago, Mentat said:

You're defining art and literature through the process of creation (which, to you, must involve a human) rather than through the result itself.

You're also conflating a different, separate issue (that of what is the adequate compensation for artists whose work is used in the process of training an AI).

If you read a short, beautiful poem which inspires powerful emotions in you and I later told you it had been produced by a thousand chimpanzees with typewriters or by Scrabble letter tiles falling randomly on a board, is that poem not art?

If I train an AI to produce pictures of still-life paintings in the style of 17th century Dutch masters (whose work is in the public domain) and succeed to the point where neither you nor an expert can tell the difference between the AI's output and the real thing, is that not art?

These are far more complex and philosophical questions than you seem to think.

 

I support actual artists and writers.

4 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

I remember when Photoshop came out, and all the accompanying handwringing.

Like Photoshp, AI is a tool. Nothing more. In order to get worthwile results, you need to know how to use it. 

 

Typing in “make this picture” write this story”.  Is not creative.  It is not art.  The people who are having their actual work harvested to facilitate LLM output deserve compensation.

I don’t think so.  No more than a story produced by a generative AI is literature.  I think Generative AI is a magic plagiarism machine and artists and authors should be compensated for LLMs using their work to produce output.

Discuss.