throwsbooks

🐧

He featured in a documentary recently. Neat watch.

Isn't Star Wars the franchise that really kick started the trend of bringing dead/younger versions of actors back as CGI replicas?

Oh, 100%. They're way too rudimentary. NNs alone don't go through the sense-think-act loops that necessitates a conscious autonomous agent. One day, maybe, but again, we're at the brain matter in petri dish stage.

I agree on the concepts thing too. People learn to paint by imitating what they see around them, their favourite artists, their favourite comics and cartoons. Then, over time with practice and experimentation, these things get encoded, but there's always that influence there somewhere.

Midjourney just has the benefit of being able to learn from way more imagery in a way shorter of an amount of time and practice way faster than any living human. So like, I get why artists are scared of it, but there's definitely a fundamental misunderstanding around how these things work floating around.

But, if you have an answer that actually, genuinely proves that this “neural” network is operating similarly to how the human brain does… then you have invalidated your original post. Because if it really is thinking like a human, NO ONE should own it.

I think this is a neat point.

The human brain is very complex. The neural networks trained on computers right now are more like collections of neurons grown together in a petri dish, rather than a full human brain. They serve one function, say, recognizing or generating an image or calculating some probability or deciding on what the next word should be in a sequence. While the brain is a huge internetwork of these smaller, more specialized neural networks.

No, neural networks don't have a database and they don't do stats. They're trained through trial and error, not aggregation. The way they work is explicitly based on a mathematical model of a biological neuron.

And when an AI is developed that's advanced enough to rival the actual human brain, then yeah, the AI rights question becomes a real thing. We're not there yet, though. Still just matter in petri dishes. That's a whole other controversial argument.

Corpos love opt-out because it lets them take advantage of people who don't consent but maybe weren't paying attention to or understanding the option right at the moment, esp if deceptive design is used.

Edit: and judging by the stupid formatting of that poll, I don't think I trust them not to use deceptive design to confuse people lmao.

I was at Walmart the other day and there were four employees standing around the self checkout. They all said bye to me when I left. Weird shit.

At that point, why not just have them work the tills??

Personally, I'm a comp sci graduate who did several courses exploring AI, but I actually started out in fine arts and continue to paint, write, and play music to this day. I'm sure I'll be blending these studies in some way when I move on to my master's.

I agree that automation is scary. It's unregulated. But it's not the tech so much that's evil, but rather the employers who see it as a reason to get rid of employees. And before, it'd be manual labour that we replaced with machines. People doing mental labour thought they were immune, until now they're not. Our economic system's going to need to change in some way.

But generative AI can be very good even for artists. For example, sometimes I suffer from writer's block (who doesn't?). Now, I can feed what I'm working on into chatGPT and have it spit out an example of the next paragraph. Sometimes that's enough to spur me on so I can write the next page.

Artist movements in general are pretty conservative. When digital painting first became a thing, allowing people use layers and filters so easily, the kneejerk reaction by artists was to consider it cheating.

My hope is that in an ideal world, human-made art becomes valuable in the future precisely because it has the human touch. Live music played on real instruments, paintings on canvas, the sorts of things with quirks and imperfections and a human element that can't be mass produced. Let the corporations have their algorithmic, soulless advertisements, and let the people focus on true self expression.

But then for people without artistic talent, say those who want to make indie games but can't hire an artist or a musician because they're just some kid with a dream and little experience? Hell, why not let them generate some assets with AI?

But we need to make sure that people aren't afraid of becoming homeless, starving on the streets. I think, we're not getting rid of AI at this point, it's too powerful, and I don't have an answer to our societal problems. For better or worse, we'll adapt.

It's probably related to the fact that it seems a lot of Lemmy users are in tech, rather than art.

I think generative AI is a great tool, but a lot of people who don't understand how it works either overestimate (it can do everything and it's so smart!!) or underestimate it (all it does is steal my work!!)

Ugh you're right. I admit I've scrolled through AITA more often than I should, because something about it is really entertaining.

But it's like junk food, I don't really feel good when I'm done with it. More vindictive, like those revenge subs. Being off Reddit has reduced how much I see it, and I don't particularly want to go back to that.

I always thought i for index when iterating through an array. Then you can't use i again in a nested loop so j follows.

Tho sometimes x, y if the array represents coordinates.

Only a maniac would use a, b.

Just tried it. "An oonique"... Sounds fancy.