- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://pawb.social/post/22215920
Source (Via Xcancel)
You must log in or register to comment.
“A computer made this” is so dumbed down from what is going on that it’s wrong. The actual process of generating images from noise is a very fascinating one and still seems like magic to me, but it is far from the computer creating something from nothing. Then again, to get metaphysical, humans who do artwork get their spark of creation somewhere from something they’ve experienced. Go too deep and it becomes a Matrix “what is real” discussion.
i always like to call it hallucination, it’s significantly closer to how it works both technically and in effect.
What messes with me is how many AI videos I’ve seen that are so similar to dreams. The hallucinations that AI produces are very similar to the ones our brains produce, and that makes me feel like more of a meat computer than usual.
What I’ve found even more fascinating is, particularly in earlier iterations of the technology, visual effects produced were remarkably similar to visual distortions people experience with certain drugs.
Easy to make a lot out of this where it’s not warranted, but at minimum it gives some interesting food for thought re: how visual processing works. Have seen people write about this, but am too dumb to actually understand.
I have thought the same thing for years now. I almost wish GenAI stayed as simple and shit.
Unrelated but kinda related, Symmetric Vision makes some wonderful psychedelic recreations, the most accurate by far.
King gizzard have a fantastic AI music video relating to a mushroom trip, its incredibly similar to intense hallucinations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njk2YAgNMnE
You’re a meat computer and always have been, flesh sack named after a famous abuser
I think fabrication is a better term than hallucination because of the double entendre of it being industrially fabricated and also being a lie.
that’s more of a comment on the usage than on the technology itself.
remember that google deepdream thing that would hallucinate dogs everywhere? it’s the same tech.
*shrugs
I think calling it a hallucination is anthropomorphizing the technology.
so is calling it fabrication. something incapable of knowing what is true cannot lie.
also, gpts and image generators are fundamentally different technologies sharing very little code beyond the basic matrix manipulation stuff, so the definition of truth needs to be very different.
that’s literally how it works though, the software is trained to remove noise from images and then you feed it pure noise and tell it there’s an image behind it. If that’s not hallucination idk what would be.
If that’s the case, then we anthropomorphize technology all the time. Like, constantly. How many times has your phone died when its not even alive? How does a phone drop a connection without hands? We feed a computer input and it regurgitates or spits out output, all without a mouth. The examples are endless but hard to immediately pick out, because the usage has changed to be completely commonplace. Even bytes were originally conceived as a play on words with ‘bite sized’ to refer to a small collection of bits. I don’t necccessarily defend these ‘AI’ tools, but policing the language people use ain’t it. Changing the word hallucinate to refer to a part of technology is exactly how language has functioned since always
that removes the reference to how it actually functions though, at that point you might as well just stop being coy and call it “AI dogshit”
Yes, good point, and it’s incredible that so often the hallucination is close enough that our pattern-matching brains say, yes, that’s exactly right!
eh is that really true though? in my experience our brains tend to go “wow, this looks exactly right but there’s something ineffably off about it and i hate it!”
i dunno if this is the point of the post, bt im pretty sure the comic is generated…
my reasoning, in case nayone cares:
- painting isn’t the same in first and last panel
- small imperfections in the ears in the second and third panel
- second and third frame look almost identical, but are not. it doesn’t make much sense to redraw a scene when it’s exactly the same… at least to me…
so lik— what is the point of dis post? ai image bad? i agee, bt is there another point?
EDIT: srri if it was obvious to evrione thad the comic is fake… to me it was not, so i thought i share what i see
The hand holding the painting in the first panel must be huge lmao
*optimized XXXXL-size for simultaneous choking and finge- I mean, uh, nevermind.
Sole people just have large hands, OK?
oh ur right!!! i complitli missed that!! ha!
Yep the subversion here is that the comic itself is AI-generated. So the humor is based on the misdirection of the speaker and the fourth wall break.
The fact that a lot of people missed this means the quality of AI images (in some cases) is finally approaching human levels of quality, further emphasizing the shock of the speaker.
Arguments about whether or not it’s ethical aside, that is really quite the technological achievement.
yisyis i see it exactli lik dis. i alsuu thought thad, bt then i alsuu thought hmmmm i wondr if this is so obvious that dis is the main jok… which apparentli it is sooo it gud <3
Translation in case others struggle with reading this reply:
I don’t know if this is the point of the post, but I’m pretty sure the comic is generated.
My reasoning, in case anyone cares:
- Painting isn’t the same in first and last panel
- Small imperfections in the ears in the second and third panel
- Second and third frame look almost identical, but are not. It doesn’t make much sense to redraw a scene when it’s exactly the same… at least to me.
So like— what is the point of this post? AI image bad? I agree, but is there another point?
EDIT: Sorry if it was obvious to everyone that the comic is fake… to me it was not, so I thought I share what I see.
Given the context, it wouldn’t be surprising if the comic was at least partially AI generated.
may i ask - is dis “translation” generated?
No, I manually replaced the words one by one with what I thought it was supposed to be, only then was I able to understand your post.
No offense, despite your points being valid, I can’t understand your broken English as it doesn’t read out in my head.
The redrawing of the third frame is to show a pause before the response. At least that’s how I interpret it.
Like looking at someone who is showing you something blatantly obvious as if it were new to everyone. Pausing, then responding. “Well duh”
yesm i kno…
deleted by creator
I don’t get the first tweet, the four panel comic. Are they excited because ai can generate images that imitate art, or are they worried because no one seems to take it seriously?
Edit:
Looking at the real thread and looking at the other ai bros, I think I’ve come to the conclusion that the poster is shocked and confused that people aren’t as excited as they are about this.
This for example was one of them.
I interpreted he’s taken aback that no one is acknowledging or celebrating his super neat prompt slop.
I looked through kimmonismus’ profile, and they’re a huge ai fan. So I think you’re probably right.
i dun think so…othrwise he’d hav said “i made this” n not “a computer made this”… cuz lik… hes not praising himself and not claiming its his, bt instead says that the putr made it…
Yeah, I think, there’s just some tech folks and tech bros, who think AI is going to change everything. Then there’s other tech folks, who are simply fucking tired of the hype cycle. And then there’s the majority of people, i.e. the non-techies, for whom AI has largely no bearing on their life. From the position of “it’s going to change everything”, you would probably be alienated massively by there being people who just don’t think about it at all.
i thinksies the guy is like “woah, computr cn do dis! dis crazi” n peeps lik “yea so what” n he agn lik “nununu u dun realize. dis is scari!!! lik - bad scari!!!”
i dun think the guy liks it, othrwise eh wouldn look so scared kinda in last panl
Looking at kimmonismus’ profile, the person posting the comic, they are a huge ai fan. I’d find it strange if they posted something that would criticize ai, especially with a comment seemingly agreeing with the comic.
yes, chubby is huge ai fan. bt lik… peeps cn be self-reflecting i feel… evn if ai peeps.
im an ai peep. jus not an image ai peep… n i totalli kno ai is mostli dum n shiddi n nt useful, which a babbl bout in this post
sooo yis… maybsies theyr reflectin… or mayb it rlli is jus “woah dis comic genrated!!! :o” n nothin else…
I think the methods they use to make all this ‘ai’ art is really interesting, like diffusion models and stuff, but the fact that they are literally stealing from artists and creators without compensating them is pretty bad
What the actual fuck do you think human artists are doing?
getting paid for their work, ideally
which is why people hate AI, because it means people do not get paid for their work
i mean i’m all for shitting on people who think AI should replace humans, but surely it only hurts the message to call AI content ugly when it looks completely nondescript? At least to me it comes across as a bit dogmatic.
Art has some unusual properties, compared to other things people might want (homes, jewelry, etc). In economic terms, it’s a “non-rivalrous good” - it doesn’t get used up when people experience it. It’s also a good that is extremely easy to share with almost everyone in the world, and the world is a big place so there are a lot of very talented artists even though they’re only a small fraction of humanity.
All together, this means that there’s not much reason to look at anything expect really good art - there’s more really good art available for free than you’ll have time to see, so why would you look at anything mediocre? The AI’s art is usually mediocre (although I’ve seen some pretty good pieces) so the people making a big deal of it look foolish. Don’t they realize that it’s just a poor imitation of human art?
The thing is that the AI is better at art than almost every human is. It’s certainly faster and cheaper than any human. That’s not world-changing because of the unusual properties art has which I discussed, but it’s not world-changing in the same way that the Wright brothers’ first airplane wasn’t world-changing. It barely got off the ground and it certainly couldn’t do anything useful… Still, if birds could be jealous of flight then they should have been worried.
So yeah, I think it’s amazing that a computer can create even a mediocre painting. Less than five years ago, it couldn’t. That’s already faster than most human artists learned to create art. I suspect that in another five years, its output will be indistinguishable from professional-quality human art even by experts.
(And art is just a toy that AI companies use to show off their technology, like IBM with Deep Blue playing chess against Gary Kasparov. The real fun will be elsewhere.)
what do you classify as art?
I personally believe that art is just someone’s presentation of their ideas, and the medium is irrelevant. In my opinion things like books and games can contain art, just as images can.
I don’t think anyone claims that music or literature can’t be art (though some people claim that video games can’t) but in this context I’m using “art” as a shorthand for visual art of the sort that the public is interested in seeing computers create.
(Modern AI can also generate music and poetry, although it’s worse at those art forms than at visual art. Plus listening to bad music takes time in a way that clicking past bad art doesn’t and the general public does not care about poetry.)
